CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 5:00 am

With SIA ordering another 10 777-200ERs, they have almost cemented themselves into being one of the biggest if not largest 777 operators in the world. With the advent of the 777-200LR and 777-300ER, how much of a chance does the A340-500 stand when the new Longer Ranged 777s come into being? I know that SIA still has the A340-500 on order and will operate them, but with SIA operating such a vast number of 777-200s, 777-200ERs and 777-300s will the A340-500 eventually end up like its older sister the -300 and be pushed out the by the higher capacity, faster flying and cheaper to operate 777-200LR?

(I say cheaper to operate by looking at the paper numbers for both aircraft.)
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
wingman
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 4:25 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 7:22 am

I guess it depends on what they love more, the 777 or RR engines.
 
teahan
Posts: 4989
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 1999 11:18 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 7:34 am

Hello,

SIA have said several times that they will keep the A340-500s on order. I heard several reasons being mentioned, one of them being the seating configuration. They like the flexibility of the B777's seating for medium/long-haul flighs while they prefer the A340-500s 2-4-2 in Y and 2-2-2 in C on the ultra long-haul flights. Remember, 17 hours to be stuck in a seat is a long time.

Several airlines like Cathay Pacific and Emirates seem to be going down the same road.

Jeremiah
Goodbye SR-LX MD-11 / 6th of March 1991 to the 31st of October 2004
 
GE
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2000 5:01 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 8:21 am

That's being very thoughful of them. At least they care 'bout passenger service.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 8:30 am

The latest word/rumour is that the A340-500's will be operated in an all-premium configuration ie all business and first pax for non-stops to LAX, SFO etc.

expect about 30F/180J...something like that.

But I don't know whether this is a wise decision. Is there demand for such large numbers of premium pax? But that is the latest word/rumour.

The A340-500 is better for the job since it allows SQ to operate in a 2-2-2 business class configuration in a cabin-cross section that was optimized for the 2-2-2 business config.

Regards,

The Coachman
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 8:31 am

CX747,

I'm pretty sure that when the order was made the A345 was the best choice as Boeing had not unveiled their 777-200LR. The original 777-X competing against the 345 was lacking in MTOW, thrust and range.
If the choice today was between the 345 and 772LR, I believe the decision may be different. I also think there were some political problems b/w SQ and GE,but I'm not sure on this.
It does seem strange that SQ with a requirement for 80+ 777s eventually would order a small number of 345s, but the decision was made when the 343s still had a significant future at SQ.
SQ have never been scared to order new types and several aircraft have had relatively short stay at the airline including 727s and 757s. They are not scared to chop and change and their coffers are deep enough that they can afford to do this.
As to the long-term future of the 345 at SQ: I am not sure. I think their orders are 5+5 options. If the options are taken up they could be around for a while,but I am pessismistic.
On paper the A346 seems nearly as capable with the recent MTOW and range increases, I think, and the orders show that this will be by far the most popular of the 2.
The big problem for the 345 and 772LR could be the SC if it is launched with a 9000nm range and acceptable economics. I don't think we will see too many more ULR orders until the details on the SC become clearer.

Dale.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 9:42 am

The proposed nonstop SIN-LAX/SFO service using a low-density A345 would not be an attractive long term solution for any airlines. Does this mean SQ will switch to the B772LR? I will make a bold prediction here. I don't think SQ will. Why? It appears the Sonic Cruiser is reality. If so, don't expect too many new orders for either the A345 or B772LR in the coming years.
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Fri Jun 08, 2001 11:46 am

Given the number of B777s SQ is operating and the ones in order, this will sum up to quite a number of B777s. My guess is they ordered only a few A345s to test them out first before making anymore decisions as they weren't really happy with the A343s they have, maybe at the meantime waiting for Boeing's launch of the B777LR then see.?

Not really sure, my guess.

Cheers,

alvin
Boeing747 万岁!
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Sat Jun 09, 2001 12:17 am

Industry analsysts suggest SIA didn't like the exclusive General Electic engine contract with the 777LRs, therefore they loved the Trent more and opted for the A345s.

I am sceptical however. I wouldn't know, but I would suppose they would balance the longer flying and probably climb time of the A345 vs. the fact that new maintenace thingies are needed for GE engines and also training for SIAEC.

THe 777-200s are replacing A313/2s and some are just there.

The 777-300s are for something

The 777-200ER are for something and the SIN - AMS - ORD route!
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
Econojetter
Posts: 356
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 11:24 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Sat Jun 09, 2001 1:59 am

Back then when SQ ordered the -500s, the B777LR was the less attractive of the two because:

- Takeoff distance at MTOW, especially in tropical SIN; Boeing even considered a third (auxiliary) jet as a booster during T/O
- When one engine fails, the B777 loses 50% of its power; to build in sufficient safety margin in case of engine-out during T/O, the aircraft has to be much overpowered. Commercial engine manufacturers were struggling to coax more power out of relatively new engine designs. It is not unreasonable to suppose that when a design envelop is being pushed, other issues such as engine noise and fuel burn can surface (speculation).
- ETOPS considerations; while twin jets may eventually be no more restricted than a quad jet in long haul operations over remote regions, a section of the public clearly has reservations about flying twins.
- the exclusive GE deal
- while Boeing had a headstart, by the time SIA was ready to order, delivery dates were already behind Airbus.
- the edge enjoyed by the B777 over the A340-300 disappeared as the A340-500 was stretched, and its wing redesigned for increased cruising speed with RR offered as powerplant.
- the B777 vs A340 cabin debate is not valid since seating would be greatly reduced, i.e. SIA had the space to be creative.
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 2:52 am

It is my believe that when the 777-200LR is rolling off the assembly line, that SIA will order it and "compete" the A34-500 and 777-200LR against one another.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 2:56 am

Maybe the A345 will win this time? I don't think they preferred GE engines?

alvin
Boeing747 万岁!
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:14 am

Before 1995, does anyone here think SQ, with only Pratt and CFM engines, would ever order Rolls engines? But they did, didn't they? If the deal is right, SQ will order the B773ER.
 
Guest

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:36 am

SIA will NEVER order the GE90 777-200LR & 300ER, their wide-body fleet is mainly powered by P&W and RR engines. They traded in some of their underpowered GE/Snecma CFM56-5C4 A340-300s to Boeing for RR Trent 800 powered 777-200ERs.
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 9:45 am

TEDSKI:

Give me a break. Don't get so hung up on engines, would you please? As stated in my previous reply, SQ had never ordered any Rolls engine before 1995. Had that stopped them from ordering Rolls engines in 1995? As I have told you many times, the aircraft performance should be a more important factor than engine performance. If you think engines are that important, why do you think DL has both GE and PW engines on their B767s? Why do you think LH has both CFM and IAE engines on their A320 family? Why do you think QF has PW, GE, and RR engines on their B767s? Snap out of it, would you?
 
b757300
Posts: 3914
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 10:27 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 12:38 pm

Tedski, you never fail to amaze me. Laugh out loud
"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
 
aviasian
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2001 8:11 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 1:35 pm

What a lively debate!!

SQ has never married any engine manufacturer, has gone to bed with various aircraft manufacturers . . .

And her purchasing policies are still strung to performance (first and foremost), passenger comfort, and price.

As pointed out by Dynkrisolo, no one thought she would hang RR-engines on her B777s, but she did (when the sums added up rightly).

SQ's future fleet composition will continue to mystify until the very day the purchase is announced . . . speculations here will at best remain right there, as speculations.

 
Singapore 777
Posts: 980
Joined: Sat May 29, 1999 3:00 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 1:50 pm

It depends on whether SQ likes the cabin design of the A345 or not...they might just go for the 777LR if they do not like the 345 cabin design
 
vunz
Posts: 347
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2001 3:51 pm

The Qantas 767

Tue Jun 12, 2001 3:33 pm

Qantas has three type of engines cause they switched after 1987 and the third type due to takeover from BAW.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 4:04 pm

Vunz,

Not exactly, you probably mean what I'm going to say but your post didn't quite say this.

Their B767-238ER's have PW engines (JT9DR4D), these 7 aircraft were purchased around 1984.

When QF decided to buy the B767-338ER, they decided to use GE engines (the CF6 -80C2B series). They now have 22 and the last one, VH-OGV, was delivered only a few months ago.

When the competition hotted up here towards the beginning of last year, QF took advantage of the fact that BA were trying to ditch some B767-336ER's (with RR RB211-524H engines), they now have 7 of these.

They have 3 different engines. But QF flys 3 GE CF6 B747-400's and the rest of their B747-400 fleet is RR RB211-524G engines. So, it doesn't really matter that they have 3 different B767 engines, cos their cousins will be found on the B747-400's anyway. The JT9D's are on their way out anyway, cos of QF's order of A330-200's and A330-300's.

Regards,

The Coachman

M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1823
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 6:26 pm

The QF example just shows an airline can be quite flexible about engine selection as the business need dictates. In the SQ case, if SQ wants the B773ER bad enough, they will order the B773ER with the GE90. And SQ will find a way to squeeze out as much from GE as they can, just like SQ did with Rolls.
 
RMenon
Posts: 113
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2001 10:51 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Tue Jun 12, 2001 11:00 pm

Considering the on-going ETOPS issues with SIA and IFSD rate on the RR 777's, SIA could well choose a 4engine a/c or a GE powered 777.

As others have pointed out, we will know what SIA chooses when they issue a press release to that effect  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

Ramesh
 
SInGAPORE_AIR
Posts: 11619
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2000 4:06 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Wed Jun 13, 2001 12:22 am

I think SIA know that the 777LR is a better performance on paper. Also the A345 is on paper before someone has a go @ me.

Boeing have lost a great and very very major customer by doing an exclusive with GE, and I see that as Boeing shooting themselves in the foot.

Tough luck for them. Unless they get rid of the GE deal. Total stupidness I think. Totally.
Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
 
CX747
Topic Author
Posts: 5566
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 2:54 am

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Wed Jun 13, 2001 4:49 am

In other matters, maybe United should take a look at SIA, who has dumped their A340-300s in favor of going with the 777-200ER. I understand that the A340-600 and 777-300ER is another battle, but the airframe itself and how customers approve of it doesn't change. United WAKE UP, stick with the world beating 777.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: SQ, The 777 And The A340-500.

Wed Jun 13, 2001 11:11 am

The reason Boeing did the exclusive deal with GE was because GE offered financial assistance to Boeing in the design of the B777-200LR and B777-300ER. This reduced Boeing financial exposure but unfortunately, it's also left Boeing with a lot of dissatisfied customers.

Regards,

The Coachman
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want