qf789 wrote:

Singapore Airlines will resume non-stop flights from Singapore to New York (EWR) from 11 October 2018 using A350-900ULR initially 3 weekly, going to daily from 18 October 2018

The Aircraft will be configured with 67 Business Class seats and 94 Premium Economy seats

Schedule is as follows

Up to 27 October

SQ22 SIN2335-600+1EWR
SQ21 EWR1045-1730+1SIN

From 28 October

SQ22 SIN40-530EWR
SQ21 EWR945-1715+1SIN

Los Angeles and a third destination will follow at a later date

Flights will be on sale from 31 May 2018

https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... ource=hero

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/sin ... st-flight/

Great news! After a long gap, they are back in EWR. Last time they few A345 was a great product and I assume that this will be a great match or even better.

The last time I flew this route, the timings were exactly opposite- late night takeoff from EWR and early morning landing in SIN. On return, leaving SIN midday and arriving in EWR around 10 pm (?). This is a good change for connecting traffic on both ends. However, 9.45 am departure from EWR seems to be a bit early.

They keep talking about a ULH destination...I wonder if SIN-IAD has a shot.

SQ789 wrote:

(...) What will the A359ULR Configuration looks like?

The answer is in the second sentence of the first post. Did you only read the first sentence?

a320fan wrote:

I had my money on it would be to JFK this time around. Maybe my perception is off, as I've never been anywhere near NYC, but I don't picture EWR as a premium airport, nor an option many people consider when heading to New York.

Your perception is most certainly off:

- EWR is closer than JFK to many parts of Manhattan and The Bronx (and even a tiny bit of Brooklyn) via car and rail.
- If you type "New York City" into a flight search, it will search for the NYC code which includes EWR. Most of the flying public would have no idea about the difference between EWR and JFK.
- Terminal C in EWR is one of the nicest American terminals IMO. There are plenty of high quality food options, good seating, power outlets, etc. Of course it's nothing like SIN or DOH, but does any American city have an airport like that?

jfklganyc wrote:

Why is it EWR and not JFK? Im curious, because:

1. They have an operation at JFK; not EWR

2. They keep making a point of saying they are going to serve “New York” in their ads, but make no mention of “EWR” in the ad. Im pretty sure they have to do that. “New Service to New York (EWR)” I mean, technically, the ad is a lie.

Even Royal Carribbean, which serves only Bayonne for their NY cruises, sends one cruise a year to Manhattan...specifically so their ads saying “Offering cruises from NY” arent a lie. This year that cruise is on Nov 13

3. What is the draw of this flight to EWR and only EWR?

Im not starting a EWR JFK thing. It is just really bizzare

EWR is still in New York metro area with the IATA city code of NYC, I believe

blueflyer wrote:

DiscoverCSG wrote:

The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

UA and Singapore never seemed too keen on collaborating. I flew the non-stops to EWR/LAX several times back then, almost always with a connection, and I often ended up on another carrier for the domestic leg, even when UA was a viable option, timing wise.

Back then UA and SQ did not have any codeshares. But both probably realised they have a bigger enemy in the ME3
They launched their first codeshares 2 years ago, out of IAH for SQ's flight there, and UA got to put their code on some SQ/Silkair operated flights though I can't remember which.

Now that the ice between them has thawed, I imagine they will codeshare more as SQ returns to EWR.

But the EWR connection factor ranks rather low IMHO. There will no doubt be some, but I see this as high yield destination SE Asia traffic to and from NYC. Nobody competes with SQ in the way they can deliver this and they know it. The A380 will continue plying passengers via Europe on the usual route and most will fly out of JFK. But re EWR-SE Asia nonstop no airline is better positioned to do this nonstop than SQ.

Having EWR as my home airport, always was a sense of pride for the world's longest non-stop flight to include EWR. Glad to have it back (would have still been happy had it been SIN-JFK - I've flown out of JFK a bunch as well).

What's interesting is IIRC, the old SQ21/22 used to leave SIN mid-day, and arrive in EWR early afternoon, leaving back at night and arrive in SIN early morning. Interesting why the change in flight timings from what they used to do. I guess there is no perfect timings unless they have it sit around a while.

Very cool to see this flight. Is the J-class going to be the same as the other A350s?

I think probably IAH too. But why does it have to be a US City in North America? Maybe YYZ? YYZ & SIN are both Star Alliance hubs.

jfklganyc wrote:

Why is it EWR and not JFK? Im curious, because:

1. They have an operation at JFK; not EWR

2. They keep making a point of saying they are going to serve “New York” in their ads, but make no mention of “EWR” in the ad. Im pretty sure they have to do that. “New Service to New York (EWR)” I mean, technically, the ad is a lie.

Even Royal Carribbean, which serves only Bayonne for their NY cruises, sends one cruise a year to Manhattan...specifically so their ads saying “Offering cruises from NY” arent a lie. This year that cruise is on Nov 13

3. What is the draw of this flight to EWR and only EWR?

Im not starting a EWR JFK thing. It is just really bizzare

1.) Their 'operation' at JFK is one flight, where they fill quite a bit of the plane with JFK-FRA-JFK traffic. I wouldn't make decisions based just on that. Having a flight option from EWR & JFK increases optionality as well. I don't think many people would choose the 1-stop at JFK over the non-stop at EWR based purely on their preference/convenience to JFK, but maybe it happens every now and then

2.) Whether you like it or not, EWR as a New York City airport. If you want to put ridiculous standards to this and say that they are implying New York 'State' then fine, but that is incredibly pedantic. If we take the broader approach, many major metro airports are not within city limits of the cities they primarily serve. We never have problems with those.

3.) Somewhat they above. More likely some analysis they've done indicates more of their expected passenger population live closer to EWR, or are in Manhattan and may be indifferent. My guess is SQ gave this some thought, and more thought than 'isn't JFK the premier, sexier airport?'

LAX772LR wrote:

Airlines don't give two craps about invisible political lines when they're targeting a particular demographic.
.... Just like they serve Bratislava, Slovakia via an airport in Hungary....

Which airlines serve Bratislava via an airport in Hungary? Something's got mixed up here...

redcap1962 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Airlines don't give two craps about invisible political lines when they're targeting a particular demographic.
.... Just like they serve Bratislava, Slovakia via an airport in Hungary....

Which airlines serve Bratislava via an airport in Hungary? Something's got mixed up here...

It do seems like there are airlines serving Bratislava via Budapest and provide bus connection to passengers despite most people will probably opt for Vienna instead

c933103 wrote:

It do seems like there are airlines serving Bratislava via Budapest and provide bus connection to passengers despite most people will probably opt for Vienna instead

Aargh! Seriously! Wish I had known. Last fall, I landed in BUD, took a cab to Keleti station to catch a train to Bratislava.

c933103 wrote:

It do seems like there are airlines serving Bratislava via Budapest and provide bus connection to passengers despite most people will probably opt for Vienna instead

Again: Which airline??? Meanwhile BTS is connected to all of Europe quite well, and not only by FR!

Apart from that: Vienna was the better choice distance- and hence travel-time-wise...

FR sold Vienna via Bratislava when they began their BTS-operations (distance roughly 70 kms). Don't know if they do so still.

Do Singapore give staff 2 nights in NYC to recover.

Interesting to see what policies of airlines will be on the ULH. I know another thread re QANTAS Perth flights.

airbazar wrote:

aemoreira1981 wrote:

United has shown that a standard Dreamliner can make it to Singapore both from LAX and SFO nonstop.

UA has to block seats on both routes in Winter.

A lot of people keep forgetting that the -ULR is doing the same thing: blocking (via absence) tons of seats, to allow for more fuel weight.

SQ is taking advantage of that to build a more premium configuration for LAX/EWR, but it's not like they had much of a choice, so far as NYC is concerned.

a320fan wrote:

Maybe my perception is off, as I've never been anywhere near NYC, but I don't picture EWR as a premium airport, nor an option many people consider when heading to New York.

The first part. Wouldn't it be wiser to actually try USING it before making an (erroneous) conclusion?
You might be shocked by just how easy it is to get to Manhattan (read that: "target of premium traffic"), especially if you wish to avoid road traffic.

CaliguyNYC wrote:

EWR draws on UA's massive FF pool of STAR pax. I am surprised that people don't get the value of FF programs.

Probably because it's completely overblown and overemphasized among avgeeks.

Turkish, ANA, Asiana, EgyptAir, and South African serve NYC but don't even bother accessing UA's hub.
EVA did, but then left.

redcap1962 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Just like they serve Bratislava, Slovakia via an airport in Hungary....

Which airlines serve Bratislava via an airport in Hungary? Something's got mixed up here...

Can you show us BA, AF, KL, LH, IB, TK, TP, EI, LX or just about any major Euro carrier's flights into BTS?
You'll find that OK and FR are the only two who do, year-round. Nearly every other major carrier serves BTS via VIE.

Buses run on an all-day hourly shuttle between BTS and VIE for a reason.......

Most of the people paying for J tickets on this flight will be coming from or visiting offices in the lower Manhattan financial district. EWR is just as easy to get to from Wall Street as is JFK. What then favors EWR is the FF base of Star Alliance passengers who use EWR as their primary NYC area airport. Were SQ a Skyteam airline, I have no doubt they would have chosen JFK.

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

Most of the people paying for J tickets on this flight will be coming from or visiting offices in the lower Manhattan financial district. EWR is just as easy to get to from Wall Street as is JFK. What then favors EWR is the FF base of Star Alliance passengers who use EWR as their primary NYC area airport. Were SQ a Skyteam airline, I have no doubt they would have chosen JFK.

SQ is star alliance. Not skyteam.

Sightseer wrote:

airbazar wrote:

For example, they would need a minimum of 3 aircraft for SIN-EWR alone, but only 5 aircraft for both SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX.

Is this factoring in the need for a spare plane/maintenance? The actual round-trip SIN-EWR-SIN will only take 42-43 hours, so just two planes will need to be airborne at any given time.

Operational slack is not an option if you are a first class airline and charges a premium for your ULR flight.

SIN-EWR-SIN can operate with 2.5 aircraft but obviously airbus doesn't sell half a plane...

That's why the route has to be paired with SIN-LAX-SIN to make sense. 5 frames with up to 4 airborne at the same time. And if there is a delay in any one of them, you can rotate the spare frame in and keep the schedule on time.

SQ has ordered 7x A350 ULR so either they will switch SIN-SFO-SIN to ULR frames or they will add another destination (ORD?)

blooc350 wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

Most of the people paying for J tickets on this flight will be coming from or visiting offices in the lower Manhattan financial district. EWR is just as easy to get to from Wall Street as is JFK. What then favors EWR is the FF base of Star Alliance passengers who use EWR as their primary NYC area airport. Were SQ a Skyteam airline, I have no doubt they would have chosen JFK.

SQ is star alliance. Not skyteam.

Which is EXACTLY what I said. Please re-read my post.

LAX772LR wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Im not starting a EWR JFK thing.

Yes you are, as this has been explained to you before.

They served EWR nonstop for 9yrs, served it 1stop before that, and have served JFK even longer; they obviously know what works best for them and where.

Lastly, and for the umpteenth-zillionth time, EWR is an NYC co-terminal whether you and those like you choose to be willfully-obtuse about it or not.

Airlines don't give two craps about invisible political lines when they're targeting a particular demographic.
Just like they serve Cincinnati, Ohio via an airport in Kentucky. Just like they serve Bratislava, Slovakia via an airport in Hungary. Just like........

A hundred for this response!

airzona11 wrote:

Very cool to see this flight. Is the J-class going to be the same as the other A350s?

Yes. According to the ausbt link in the OP:

"Singapore Airlines has confirmed to Australian Business Traveller the pointy end of the A350-900ULR will see the same business class seat as on its regular Airbus A350-900 jets..."

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

Most of the people paying for J tickets on this flight will be coming from or visiting offices in the lower Manhattan financial district.

My understanding from the last time this flight operated was that the big draw for choosing EWR is because it's closer to the energy, bio-tech and tech sectors in New Jersey, not just the financial sector in Manhattan.

According to the New York Times: “The nonstop flight is primarily meant to appeal to business travelers, which is why Newark airport was chosen as the New York gateway. It gives the airline easy access to business customers in Manhattan and in northern New Jersey.” (18 Hours and 45 Minutes: Longest Commercial Flight Returns to Service)

As someone else pointed out, ‘premium’ doesn’t describe any New York airport, including JFK!

FlightLevel360 wrote:

Should launch from JFK to be honest. Closer to the city and everything with EWR about twice the distance away and a much more dismal experience. But I guess they chose EWR for the east coast connection opportunities on United. Then again, we do have a one stop flight from JFK to Singapore already. I guess it's better to offer passengers a choice of airport since EWR could be convenient to many people living in New Jersey.

Ha! EWR a more "dismal" experience than JFK? The only thing remotely "glamourous" about an airport in the swamps of Queens is the moniker, "JFK".
I would agree however that all 3 of the PA airports do not offer a pleasant experience.

LAX772LR wrote:

Nearly every other major carrier serves BTS via VIE.

Buses run on an all-day hourly shuttle between BTS and VIE for a reason.......

Except VIE is in Austria so I’m still not sure where Hungary comes into this.

MartijnNL wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

(...) What will the A359ULR Configuration looks like?

The answer is in the second sentence of the first post. Did you only read the first sentence?

I mean is the seating the same as the A380 Business Class or what?

I was somewhat expecting this flight to go to JFK even though EWR is my main home airport.

Nevertheless, this will be a nice addition to EWR's rapidly growing Asian destination network.

Now all we need is EWR-ICN, EWR-MNL, EWR-HND, and maybe even a second daily EWR-NRT flight...

How far is this a350 better than the previous a340-500 economically

a320fan wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Nearly every other major carrier serves BTS via VIE.

Buses run on an all-day hourly shuttle between BTS and VIE for a reason.......

Except VIE is in Austria so I’m still not sure where Hungary comes into this.

Whoa, retard moment! Totally missed that. Point remains though.

MD11A340 wrote:

How far is this a350 better than the previous a340-500 economically

I don't know about this, but I noticed the A350's will carry the same registrations as the A340's did.

SQ789 wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

SQ789 wrote:

(...) What will the A359ULR Configuration looks like?

The answer is in the second sentence of the first post. Did you only read the first sentence?

I mean is the seating the same as the A380 Business Class or what?

Hi, first time poster here. According to AusBT, it'll be the same seats found on the current A350

https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airlines-will-restart-non-stop-new-york-flights-in-october?utm_source=grid

MD11A340 wrote:

How far is this a350 better than the previous a340-500 economically

I remember from a post that Zeke wrote a while back he compared the A350 burn for same city pair (now this is the tricky part don't remember what he was piloting prior to 350, could be 340) and it was 10 tons less than previous aircraft, so yes the fuel burn numbers are impressive. If only zeke saw this and corrected me, we would know better:)

For those who are interested, here's the seatmap of the aircraft
http://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/O ... 00-ULR.pdf

MD11A340 wrote:

How far is this a350 better than the previous a340-500 economically

Hello,

A brief summary of the fuel consumption of airliners reported at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1355819 states the following:

Airbus 340-500: 8300kg/h
Airbus 350-900: 5800kg/h

Please note that the 350 figure is not for the ULR version, which might burn a bit more, given the higher actual take-off weight. Also, the table does not state which mission type was considered for the two aircraft.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 359 saves 2t/h of fuel vs the 345, resulting in a fuel economy of over 36t for the one-way mission. At a fuel price of 720USD/t, this results in a saving of almost 26'000 USD per one-way trip.
Now add the fact that the 359 carries significantly more passengers - although in a less premium two-class layout - I would assume that the economics of the new aircraft look dramatically better than with the good old 340-500.

Best regards,
Hendric

hitower3 wrote:

MD11A340 wrote:

How far is this a350 better than the previous a340-500 economically

Hello,

A brief summary of the fuel consumption of airliners reported at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1355819 states the following:

Airbus 340-500: 8300kg/h
Airbus 350-900: 5800kg/h

Please note that the 350 figure is not for the ULR version, which might burn a bit more, given the higher actual take-off weight. Also, the table does not state which mission type was considered for the two aircraft.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 359 saves 2t/h of fuel vs the 345, resulting in a fuel economy of over 36t for the one-way mission. At a fuel price of 720USD/t, this results in a saving of almost 26'000 USD per one-way trip.
Now add the fact that the 359 carries significantly more passengers - although in a less premium two-class layout - I would assume that the economics of the new aircraft look dramatically better than with the good old 340-500.

Best regards,
Hendric

SQ's A345 was initially configured with something like premium economy too and the total number of seats was even more than what they plan to put into the A359 now but they reconfigured that after a brief period of service - not sure what's the reason for that, maybe payload or yield problems at the time?

c933103 wrote:

hitower3 wrote:

MD11A340 wrote:

How far is this a350 better than the previous a340-500 economically

Hello,

A brief summary of the fuel consumption of airliners reported at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1355819 states the following:

Airbus 340-500: 8300kg/h
Airbus 350-900: 5800kg/h

Please note that the 350 figure is not for the ULR version, which might burn a bit more, given the higher actual take-off weight. Also, the table does not state which mission type was considered for the two aircraft.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 359 saves 2t/h of fuel vs the 345, resulting in a fuel economy of over 36t for the one-way mission. At a fuel price of 720USD/t, this results in a saving of almost 26'000 USD per one-way trip.
Now add the fact that the 359 carries significantly more passengers - although in a less premium two-class layout - I would assume that the economics of the new aircraft look dramatically better than with the good old 340-500.

Best regards,
Hendric

SQ's A345 was initially configured with something like premium economy too and the total number of seats was even more than what they plan to put into the A359 now but they reconfigured that after a brief period of service - not sure what's the reason for that, maybe payload or yield problems at the time?

From what I understand, at the time they introduced it around a decade ago, "Executive Economy" as SQ called it was not a product that the market understood as Premium Economy was only in its infancy at the time and therefore it did not sell well.
However the economy was doing well at the time at there was always more demand than supply for Business Class (or Raffles Class as it was known then).
So SQ reconfigured the plan to an all-Business config.
But right after they did that, the 2008 Financial Crisis happened...

infinit wrote:

c933103 wrote:

hitower3 wrote:

Hello,

A brief summary of the fuel consumption of airliners reported at https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1355819 states the following:

Airbus 340-500: 8300kg/h
Airbus 350-900: 5800kg/h

Please note that the 350 figure is not for the ULR version, which might burn a bit more, given the higher actual take-off weight. Also, the table does not state which mission type was considered for the two aircraft.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the 359 saves 2t/h of fuel vs the 345, resulting in a fuel economy of over 36t for the one-way mission. At a fuel price of 720USD/t, this results in a saving of almost 26'000 USD per one-way trip.
Now add the fact that the 359 carries significantly more passengers - although in a less premium two-class layout - I would assume that the economics of the new aircraft look dramatically better than with the good old 340-500.

Best regards,
Hendric

SQ's A345 was initially configured with something like premium economy too and the total number of seats was even more than what they plan to put into the A359 now but they reconfigured that after a brief period of service - not sure what's the reason for that, maybe payload or yield problems at the time?

From what I understand, at the time they introduced it around a decade ago, "Executive Economy" as SQ called it was not a product that the market understood as Premium Economy was only in its infancy at the time and therefore it did not sell well.
However the economy was doing well at the time at there was always more demand than supply for Business Class (or Raffles Class as it was known then).
So SQ reconfigured the plan to an all-Business config.
But right after they did that, the 2008 Financial Crisis happened...

If the implication is that the financial crisis killed demand for this route, that is incorrect. What killed these flights was the huge spike in fuel prices. Premium demand for these flights was always high but the airline can't just increase fares to cover those costs. In other words, there's only so much of a fare increase that the airline can implement to cover the increased fuel costs. When it no longer broke even, the airline canceled the flights.

Demand for executive economy was tepid at best. Some suggest it was because the product was not well understood yet. Others suggest it was because passengers in that class were not willing to pay a premium to fly non-stop. So with the J cabin going out consistently full and Y+ going out with empty seats, SQ chose to convert to an all J configuration. That worked out well until fuel prices sky rocketed.

LAX772LR wrote:

redcap1962 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Just like they serve Bratislava, Slovakia via an airport in Hungary....

Which airlines serve Bratislava via an airport in Hungary? Something's got mixed up here...

Can you show us BA, AF, KL, LH, IB, TK, TP, EI, LX or just about any major Euro carrier's flights into BTS?
You'll find that OK and FR are the only two who do, year-round. Nearly every other major carrier serves BTS via VIE.

Buses run on an all-day hourly shuttle between BTS and VIE for a reason.......

They’re referring to you confusing Hungary with Austria, which VIE is the capital of and from where BTS is largely served by air.

Stupid move to choose EWR, if UA's hub there was indeed a factor. Wouldn't Star Alliance passengers west of New York just connect in LAX or SFO and fly United nonstop to SIN?

lydh wrote:

Stupid move to choose EWR, if UA's hub there was indeed a factor. Wouldn't Star Alliance passengers west of New York just connect in LAX or SFO and fly United nonstop to SIN?

Read the last 60 replies and you’ll findcthe answer

jfklganyc wrote:

Why is it EWR and not JFK? Im curious, because:

1. They have an operation at JFK; not EWR

2. They keep making a point of saying they are going to serve “New York” in their ads, but make no mention of “EWR” in the ad. Im pretty sure they have to do that. “New Service to New York (EWR)” I mean, technically, the ad is a lie.

Even Royal Carribbean, which serves only Bayonne for their NY cruises, sends one cruise a year to Manhattan...specifically so their ads saying “Offering cruises from NY” arent a lie. This year that cruise is on Nov 13

3. What is the draw of this flight to EWR and only EWR?

Im not starting a EWR JFK thing. It is just really bizzare

SQ previously flew to EWR for some 17 years, first with a 744 with a stop in FRA then going nonstop with the A340-500 in 2009 until 2013 when the type was retired. You have to think that their original decision in the 1990s for operating from both EWR and JFK (before the nonstop), then their decision to launch the nonstop from EWR and not JFK in 2009, influenced their recent decision to re-launch service to EWR with the nonstop. Obviously there's a draw, and it's not UA, it's hub or the Star Alliance as none of those existed at EWR in the '90s when they first launched EWR-FRA-SIN with the 744 or in 2009 when they went nonstop with the A340-500.

What exactly that premium demand is specifically is probably only known to SQ, but obviously it's something that's still valid 20+ years after their initial decision to serve both NYC area airports. One influence, not saying it's the driving influence, is the maritime industry. Singapore is a huge player in the global Maritime industry, Port Newark/Elizabeth is the third largest port in the US (largest on the East Coast). It's third behind Houston/Galveston and Los Angeles/Long Beach. If the rumored next North American nonstop from SQ , after EWR and LAX, is Houston then you have your answer.

And I'm sorry but that New York ads comment it's just nonsense. The New York Jets, and the New York Giants NFL franchises are both headquartered in New Jersey and play their games in New Jersey. They don't need to have a home game within the boundaries of the City of New York to some how be legal. The Super Bowl was co-hosted by New York and New Jersey.

A330freak wrote:

For those who are interested, here's the seatmap of the aircraft
http://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/O ... 00-ULR.pdf

One thing I'm a little confused about is why the last three rows of Premium Economy are in 1-4-1 configuration. I thought the A350 fuselage didn't taper until after door 4, making the cross-section constant from door 1 to door 4? Why would SQ reduce the number of seats per row towards the back?

Is there any possibility that SFO may get the ULR some time? I'm interested to see how many economy pax are taking SQ32 instead of UA's flight, SQ2 SIN-HKG-SFO, or other similar routings. It seems to me that this route was started in reaction to UA, and it initially wouldn't have started until 2018 along with LAX/EWR.

NeBaNi wrote:

A330freak wrote:

For those who are interested, here's the seatmap of the aircraft
http://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/O ... 00-ULR.pdf

One thing I'm a little confused about is why the last three rows of Premium Economy are in 1-4-1 configuration. I thought the A350 fuselage didn't taper until after door 4, making the cross-section constant from door 1 to door 4? Why would SQ reduce the number of seats per row towards the back?

I wonder if that actually means there aren't seats there or if those are set to be routinely blocked off? Interesting indeed.

I went and dug into some numbers I had in regards to IAH/ORD-SIN.

These are 2016 numbers, but IAH had slightly higher O&D and connections than ORD, but a slightly lower yield than ORD.

I want to guess that as much as ORD is on fire with new service, IAH's oil traffic has recovered a bit and it may be a different story now. Between that and the fact that IAH is already served, I could see it easily being IAH.

I will say I am pleasantly surprised that my guess on the seat config is about 9 seats more...

We could also see a dark horse destination, i.e. SEA,IAD,YVR,YYZ. Totally unlikely but with how aviation goes, you never know! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

hitower3 wrote:

At a fuel price of 720USD/t, this results in a saving of almost 26'000 USD per one-way trip.
Now add the fact that the 359 carries significantly more passengers - although in a less premium two-class layout - I would assume that the economics of the new aircraft look dramatically better than with the good old 340-500.

The 'original' version of the SQ A340-500 had 181 seats. So the savings amount to 144 USD per seat per one way trip. Not really impressive compared to the fares SQ charged on this route. Maybe even less than 5 percent better.

Anyway, good to see the world's longest flight returning to the sky. I hope to be on board once in my life. Probably can't afford it, but dreaming about it is free.

18+ hours is just too long to sit...unless you're in first class. lol