Looks like today’s SQ22 is cancelled. Anyone knows why?

The first flight probably carried more fuel than needed so that they could reduce the chance of being diverted to another airport on the first inauguration flight, as that won't be a good publicity

Fascinating live blog from the Newark to Singapore flight. I can't imagine being inside a plane for 19+ hours even in biz class. I bet those onboard are wishing for a layover right about now.

Link- https://airwaysmag.com/special-flights/ ... -airlines/

I'm so happy this flight is back. I get to stop in NYC for a day or two, and then go to wherever in SE Asia one-stop.

mk2 wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

101.4 ton of fuel used, landed with 10 ton remaining ... Not bad
https://twitter.com/FATIIIAviation/stat ... 1213747200

101,400 kg in 17h22 => 5,839 kg/hour on average. Impressive !

Interesting data point published by an Air France B77W pilot, relating to the B77W (https://twitter.com/pascalrs/status/105 ... 10752?s=21)

To summarize :
2018-10-11 SIN-EWR, SQ A359, TOW 272t => 101,400 kg fuel in 17h22 => 5,839 kg/hour on average.
2018-09-12 CDG-SIN, AF B77W, TOW tbd => 101,400 kg in 12h08 => 8,357 kg/hour on average
I am curious, what was the TOW of the AF B77W...

Good morning from SQ 21. Full flight. We passed in fact near the North Pole. Im seated in solo Seat 40C and its great. Dinner and lunch served plus a small pizza Now before arrival. 4 crew dedicated to Premium. Some wonderful landscape over the Pole.
Alberto

flipdewaf wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

101.4 ton of fuel used, landed with 10 ton remaining ... Not bad
https://twitter.com/FATIIIAviation/stat ... 1213747200

111t of fuel, 20t of pax and bags, 5t of catering to keep Zeke happy = 136t.
Empty aircraft = 135t
271t TOW leaving another 1.5hrs of fuel to use if needed. a true 19hr bird.

Fred

Opps it's late never mind

BaconButty wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

101.4 ton of fuel used, landed with 10 ton remaining ... Not bad
https://twitter.com/FATIIIAviation/stat ... 1213747200

So at 0.81 Kg/l that's 125,000l used and 138,000l carried? So it didn't even need to use the additional fuel capacity of the ULR. Wow.

I've heard different accounts of whether the A350ULR is at it's limits on this flight, or whether SIN chose the premium heavy config regardless, and could have opted for a more dense configuration is they wanted. Does this suggest the latter may be the case? I know conditions were ideal, but there looks to be a lot of margin - it strikes me this particular flight could have been flown with the base 268 ton weight variant - I think that still allows for 25t of payload with the tanks full (going by the payload range chart in the aircraft characteristics documents).

Edit: Fred's already done the maths and it looks like 268t MTOW would have been insufficient. Never mind.

Remember they are flying with a tail wind. They will need the fuel on the return flight with headwinds.

B-HOP wrote:

zeke wrote:

tomcat wrote:

Is this 273 tonnes TOW indicative of the fact that they had some cargo on board, considering that there were only 150 passengers on board? And what about the 10 tonnes of fuel remaining after landing, how close is this to the contingency fuel requirements?

I do not know the weights or the catering of the SQ aircraft so I have no idea if cargo was carried. I assume they are heavy aircraft being premium and I am guessing 3 meals plus snacks and drinks.

10 tonnes is a lot of fuel, required final reserve would be around 2.2 tonnes (30 minutes). To carry JFK as an alternate you would need about 4.5 tonnes at EWR, to make BOS work around 7 tonnes. So they basically had the equivalent to carrying BOS as an alternate which is a 50 minute transit plus 40 minutes holding plus 30 minutes final reserve.

I do not know what ETOPS approval SQ has, we have 240 minutes. The additional fuel might mean mandatory fuel requirements for enroute alternates.

I think maybe they leave it on the safe side, given how New York weather could turn into, through they might bank more saving with the tailwind.

ETOPS alone would require more than the 2.2t for a 30 min alternate.

It is a north south flight. Doubt winds have much to do with anything.

I believe SQ21 just landed?

So still no pics from the inside as yet

rbavfan wrote:

BaconButty wrote:

sadiqutp wrote:

101.4 ton of fuel used, landed with 10 ton remaining ... Not bad
https://twitter.com/FATIIIAviation/stat ... 1213747200

So at 0.81 Kg/l that's 125,000l used and 138,000l carried? So it didn't even need to use the additional fuel capacity of the ULR. Wow.

I've heard different accounts of whether the A350ULR is at it's limits on this flight, or whether SIN chose the premium heavy config regardless, and could have opted for a more dense configuration is they wanted. Does this suggest the latter may be the case? I know conditions were ideal, but there looks to be a lot of margin - it strikes me this particular flight could have been flown with the base 268 ton weight variant - I think that still allows for 25t of payload with the tanks full (going by the payload range chart in the aircraft characteristics documents).

Edit: Fred's already done the maths and it looks like 268t MTOW would have been insufficient. Never mind.

Remember they are flying with a tail wind. They will need the fuel on the return flight with headwinds.

Same numbers for return flight from Sam Chui:
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bo3PdtJFZxt ... 5gdwghbwj3

Fuel burn: 101 tons

sq21 stats to journalists on board

A few stats: Takeoff weight was 277.3 tons, fuel was 111.3 tons, takeoff from 04Left, Remaining fuel reserve is 8.5 tons which allowed for 90 minutes flying time diversion. Total distance: 9,538nm.

https://airwaysmag.com/special-flights/ ... -airlines/

for comparison
............................ 21......... 22
TOW (t).............. 277.3.........272
Fuel (t).............102.8.........101.5
Time.............17h 20m.........17h 22m
passengers........173.........167 (including crew)

impressive performance so far

Looking forward to reading reviews of SQ22, and by reviews I mean detailed pieces which tell a proper story not some PR puff pieces. First two are now up and I expect a lot more to follow from media on SQ22 as well as the returning SQ21.

https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... e-new-york is on business class and the author takes issue with quite a few aspects of hard and softy product

https://thepointsguy.com/reviews/singap ... re-newark/ is more of a 'trip report' but focuses on premium economy which the author says finds is not much different to SQ's regular economy?

Does this flight serve 3 meals? The videos from CNN's Richard Quest seem to indicate they did!

So judging on these two flights it seems the flight does not need the tankage capability of an ULR, a standard bird would do

rbavfan wrote:

ETOPS alone would require more than the 2.2t for a 30 min alternate.

ETOPS enroute fuel figures are basically built around 3 scenarios diverting to an ETOPS enroute alternate
1) depressurisation and both engines running
2) depressurisation and singke engine
3) engine failure without depressurisation

The fuel calculations are based around this and some contingency factors to arrive with 15 minutes reserve at a ETOPS enroute alternate. With ETOPS diversion times of 240 minutes the amount of additional fuel to fly to an ETOPS alternate for example 240 minutes away with both engines running and depressurised may require additional mandatory fuel which just becomes extra fuel after that critical point has passed.

The destination alternate still needs the 30 minute reserve.

airzim wrote:

If only the math was that elementary for profitability.

Unless SQ can command a revenue premium on the nonstop, they are going to be competing on price with every ME3, US and Asian carrier.

People flying this route are not doing it to save a few bucks. That's the whole point.
The previous route with the A345 operated at above 80% LF on its worst day. They know they can operate this flight at a relative high LF, hence why it exists.
So yes they can command a premium and the so called competition is a mute point because no one else flies SIN-NYC non-stop.

airbazar wrote:

airzim wrote:

If only the math was that elementary for profitability.

Unless SQ can command a revenue premium on the nonstop, they are going to be competing on price with every ME3, US and Asian carrier.

People flying this route are not doing it to save a few bucks. That's the whole point.
The previous route with the A345 operated at above 80% LF on its worst day. They know they can operate this flight at a relative high LF, hence why it exists.
So yes they can command a premium and the so called competition is a mute point because no one else flies SIN-NYC non-stop.

The key is how many people. SQ lost money the last time, fiddled with different configurations, and that was before today’s dynamics of the West Coast nonstops. But if they can fill 60 J passengers year round everyday with full rack tickets, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

The reason this plane is so low density isn’t SQ being kind to their passengers. The plane is simply not capable in a normal year round operations with a typical layout.

But we’ll see.

FYI, it’s “moot” not mute.

airzim wrote:

airbazar wrote:

airzim wrote:

If only the math was that elementary for profitability.

Unless SQ can command a revenue premium on the nonstop, they are going to be competing on price with every ME3, US and Asian carrier.

People flying this route are not doing it to save a few bucks. That's the whole point.
The previous route with the A345 operated at above 80% LF on its worst day. They know they can operate this flight at a relative high LF, hence why it exists.
So yes they can command a premium and the so called competition is a mute point because no one else flies SIN-NYC non-stop.

The key is how many people. SQ lost money the last time, fiddled with different configurations, and that was before today’s dynamics of the West Coast nonstops. But if they can fill 60 J passengers year round everyday with full rack tickets, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

The reason this plane is so low density isn’t SQ being kind to their passengers. The plane is simply not capable in a normal year round operations with a typical layout.

But we’ll see.

FYI, it’s “moot” not mute.

No one is contesting the reasoning for the layout. It is evidently clear to all of us the purpose of the configuration. You keep telling us things that are true (e.g. need a revenue premium, very dependent on how many are willing to pay, etc.) but I'm more interested in any data or reasons you have that drive your skepticism. They ended the route before, yes, but this time they're flying with a far more efficient aircraft. I'm curious why you think SQ [i]wouldn't[i] be able to command a revenue premium over the one-stop competition and why you think they wouldn't be able to fill the cabin.

Jeb Brooks just put up a nice review of the EWR-SIN leg in J class:

https://youtu.be/xyWyonGkHmM

airzim wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

airzim wrote:

Just because this is an Airbus plane and not a US airline doesn't mean there's magic to make this flight viable.

This flight is a prestige route and will be a pig, just like last time.

Regardless of all the baloney about how great SQ is, (which is all marketing BS), they cannot command proportionally higher fares to cover the extra distance, capital costs, and residual costs with a dedicated fleet for this flight. The cabin density just doesn't cut it.

About 30 of the business seats for the fuel bill. Random return trip in November shows it to be about $5300 for the trip. 2x $79000 for the fuel bills is $158k.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only the math was that elementary for profitability.

Unless SQ can command a revenue premium on the nonstop, they are going to be competing on price with every ME3, US and Asian carrier.

Couple that with a very likely expansion of other nonstop US services over the next few years,

And the terrrible J seat

Plus the very likely increase in fuel, collapse of China growth, and pending recession;

This flight is a turd.

Other carriers can help cover the overhead by filling the back with VFR traffic, cargo etc. No option with this config.

Doesn’t mean it’s not worth flying for SQ. Prestige counts for something......I guess.

Sounds like you have a personal vendetta against SQ hence why you're hoping the route fails. Poor SQ, CLEARLY an airline like them DOESNT know what they're doing!

These ULH flights are a travesty against our planet and should ge forbidden at once regardless of the relative efficiency of the plane. The stage length after which carrying fuel to carry fuel is more uneconomical than two separate flights should be the limit.

Strato2 wrote:

These ULH flights are a travesty against our planet and should ge forbidden at once regardless of the relative efficiency of the plane. The stage length after which carrying fuel to carry fuel is more uneconomical than two separate flights should be the limit.

And what would that limit be, exactly?

V/F

Strato2 wrote:

These ULH flights are a travesty against our planet and should ge forbidden at once regardless of the relative efficiency of the plane. The stage length after which carrying fuel to carry fuel is more uneconomical than two separate flights should be the limit.

If you really think that you probably need to start another interest in something else.

airzim wrote:

airbazar wrote:

airzim wrote:

If only the math was that elementary for profitability.

Unless SQ can command a revenue premium on the nonstop, they are going to be competing on price with every ME3, US and Asian carrier.

People flying this route are not doing it to save a few bucks. That's the whole point.
The previous route with the A345 operated at above 80% LF on its worst day. They know they can operate this flight at a relative high LF, hence why it exists.
So yes they can command a premium and the so called competition is a mute point because no one else flies SIN-NYC non-stop.

The key is how many people. SQ lost money the last time, fiddled with different configurations, and that was before today’s dynamics of the West Coast nonstops. But if they can fill 60 J passengers year round everyday with full rack tickets, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

The reason this plane is so low density isn’t SQ being kind to their passengers. The plane is simply not capable in a normal year round operations with a typical layout.

But we’ll see.

FYI, it’s “moot” not mute.

SQ lost money "the last time" because the A345 burnt 165t fuel to make the trip and took off at 368t TOW.
The A350 burns 101t fuel with a 272t MTOW.

As for capability, the payload including crew would have been max 20t with 110t fuel loaded, implying a 142t DOW.
This is about 4t-5t heavier than a typical A350-900 DOW in a typical layout.
Yet the plane is flying 8t below its MTOW, landing with 9t fuel in the tanks, and tanking no more fuel than in the normal A350 configuration.

It feels like the plane would be capable of taking 10t-12t more payload in a normal cabin configuration on this route.
I suspect the ULR fuel tankage would be desirable for contingency purposes in the poorest of weather conditions.

Rgds

airzim wrote:

SQ lost money the last time..

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

While I’m sure it’s a great flight, it would feel like forever in Y class. 19 hours is a long time.

According to FlightAware, today's SQ21 was planned to use the ordinary transatlantic route over Newfoundland and Scotland. Some 30 min into the flight, it turned North as though having changed its mind, but then oriented itself parallel to the planned transatlantic route again.

huaiwei wrote:

airzim wrote:

SQ lost money the last time..

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

B747forever wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

airzim wrote:

SQ lost money the last time..

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

I thought it was dropped because they had a deal with Airbus taking back the A345 which left them with no aircraft to fly the route nonstop.

Sam Chui flight report:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jVv21yg4qw

lavalampluva wrote:

While I’m sure it’s a great flight, it would feel like forever in Y class. 19 hours is a long time.

Probably why there is no Y class.

What's becoming clear is there was no need for a ULR for this route (probably northern winter might tell us otherwise). I had completely written off A350-1000 for Project Sunrise. But with kinda performance and efficiency makes me think otherwise.

airzim wrote:

airbazar wrote:

airzim wrote:

If only the math was that elementary for profitability.

Unless SQ can command a revenue premium on the nonstop, they are going to be competing on price with every ME3, US and Asian carrier.

People flying this route are not doing it to save a few bucks. That's the whole point.
The previous route with the A345 operated at above 80% LF on its worst day. They know they can operate this flight at a relative high LF, hence why it exists.
So yes they can command a premium and the so called competition is a mute point because no one else flies SIN-NYC non-stop.

The key is how many people. SQ lost money the last time, fiddled with different configurations, and that was before today’s dynamics of the West Coast nonstops. But if they can fill 60 J passengers year round everyday with full rack tickets, I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

The reason this plane is so low density isn’t SQ being kind to their passengers. The plane is simply not capable in a normal year round operations with a typical layout.

But we’ll see.

FYI, it’s “moot” not mute.

The plane is low density to match the business strategy they have for this flight, capture the high yielding passengers that are willing to pay a premium for non-stop. SQ has other options for 1-stop passengers and they do not neat to chase the low yield traffic. NYC to SIN is in the top tier of premium traffic globally. Globally, with A350s/787s/777s and even some A380s airlines investing in ULH, connecting mega hubs/ large O/D.

SQ has the data, they partnered with Airbus on the A350LR, invested in the different config, they are chasing the high yield traffic their whole model has beeen based on.

Currently on FR24 04:22 down, 10:51 to go. It would be amazing if they could make EWR-SIN < 16 hours. Coming to look at it, SQ could have certainly gone with the regular A359 on the route. The regular A359 is capable of 16-17hr flights like SFO-SIN or JFK-MNL.

jerseyewr777 wrote:

B747forever wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

I thought it was dropped because they had a deal with Airbus taking back the A345 which left them with no aircraft to fly the route nonstop.

Not sure what deal you are talking about, but If the A345 routes which included SIN-EWR were profitable, then SQ would never have made such a deal.

voxkel wrote:

Coming to look at it, SQ could have certainly gone with the regular A359 on the route. The regular A359 is capable of 16-17hr flights like SFO-SIN or JFK-MNL.

It does make one wonder whether Airbus would have commercialized the 276T and 280T (with laminar flow tweaks and new wing tips) on the regular model had SQ not aggressively parterned with them to develop the ULH. I get the feeling, though total speculation, that they solved the ULH riddle and then realized it was straightforward to make it the baseline standard.

Additionally, it seems they over estimated how much additional fuel volume was needed as now it seems the worse days only need a tiny bit more than standard configuration could handle. Perhaps the aero tweaks returned more results then expected in the beginning?

The original 268T or 272T models weren’t going to cut the mustard for this routing. But with the aero tweaked 280T baseline standard (no extra wing tank capacity and associated plumbing)...probably would have been more sufficient for 90% days of the year.

There are no additional tanks. It is additional volume being made available in the belly tank that allowed the increased tankerage.

Indeed I have read even at the ULR volumes the tanks are still not full.

B747forever wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

airzim wrote:

SQ lost money the last time..

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

Yes, when oil was at over $100 per barrel it became unfeasible with the A345, and aircraft that consumed a lot more fuel than the A359 and only carried 100 seats. SQ claimed repeatedly that they never lost money on the route but I guess a.net knows better. The fact that the first time they removed Y+ seats in order to add more J seats tells me that the market is stronger for J than it is for Y+ on this route.

airbazar wrote:

B747forever wrote:

huaiwei wrote:

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

Yes, when oil was at over $100 per barrel it became unfeasible with the A345, and aircraft that consumed a lot more fuel than the A359 and only carried 100 seats. SQ claimed repeatedly that they never lost money on the route but I guess a.net knows better. The fact that the first time they removed Y+ seats in order to add more J seats tells me that the market is stronger for J than it is for Y+ on this route.

The other problem, not the case now, is that the A345 is a lot heavier than the A359 and the A340 overall is not suitable for missions shorter than 7 hours. Also, while the A350 can be used as a regional plane, the A345 is way too heavy for that purpose.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

airbazar wrote:

B747forever wrote:

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

Yes, when oil was at over $100 per barrel it became unfeasible with the A345, and aircraft that consumed a lot more fuel than the A359 and only carried 100 seats. SQ claimed repeatedly that they never lost money on the route but I guess a.net knows better. The fact that the first time they removed Y+ seats in order to add more J seats tells me that the market is stronger for J than it is for Y+ on this route.

The other problem, not the case now, is that the A345 is a lot heavier than the A359 and the A340 overall is not suitable for missions shorter than 7 hours. Also, while the A350 can be used as a regional plane, the A345 is way too heavy for that purpose.

I was speaking specifically to the claim that the previous iteration of this flight was unprofitable (which was not except maybe at the very end but even then SQ claimed that they just about broke even).
The route operated for nearly 10 years. It's funny how canceling a route immediately implies that the route is not profitable and yet the opposite, operating a route for 10 years cannot be judged as being profitable. Yes SQ stopped operating because it likely became too expensive when the price of oil shot up to nearly $150/bbl and it stayed at above $100/bbl for 5 years. We're a long way from that.

B747forever wrote:

Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

(see below)

jerseyewr777 wrote:

I thought it was dropped because they had a deal with Airbus taking back the A345 which left them with no aircraft to fly the route nonstop.

That played a big part in it. They would've been fools to not jump on that when given the opportunity.

B747forever wrote:

Not sure what deal you are talking about

Gee, we can't tell.

B747forever wrote:

but If the A345 routes which included SIN-EWR were profitable, then SQ would never have made such a deal.

The fallacy there, is the assumption that because SQ's ULH ops were of less comparative benefit than the value of a deal which divested of assets that were essentially worthless on the commercial market-- that the ULH must therefore have been unprofitable in aggregate.

airzona11 wrote:

SQ has the data, they partnered with Airbus on the A350LR

Indeed. And from what we can currently see, they appear to be the only ones materially interested in the A359ULR as it stands.

Should the A35K-ULR materialize, particularly with sufficient range for the likes of SYD-LHR, it'd be interesting to see if SQ does(n't) upgauge.

LAX772LR, what I mean is that I don’t know the nature/terms of the deal. I am sure SIN-EWR was profitable for a long time, but with the changing economy and high fuel prices it likely became unprofitable, or at least made it less compelling to keep the A345 for the route instead of the swap deal with Airbus.

B747forever wrote:

or at least made it less compelling to keep the A345 for the route instead of the swap deal with Airbus.

Indeed, that's what we were just trying to tell *you*... remember?

Along with the fact that again, for all you (or really, anyone here) knows, the route could've been profitable on either a standalone or network basis, but not so much so as to negate a chance to salvage value in an asset that had none.

It's hard to imagine that it wasn't bring in, or was projected to evolve to the point of bringing in, substantial value to their network versus the alternative (and considering competition).... else it would be illogical for them to have put so much effort into resuming it.

Has the route changed from the last time they flew EWR-SIN. When I flew it (a long time ago), I seem to remember the flight to SIN went right over Delhi flying through India on to SIN. Don't remember the flight back. Will the flight have different routes depending not he season?

CaliguyNYC wrote:

Has the route changed from the last time they flew EWR-SIN. When I flew it (a long time ago), I seem to remember the flight to SIN went right over Delhi flying through India on to SIN. Don't remember the flight back. Will the flight have different routes depending not he season?

The routing of any specific leg for EWR-SIN-EWR can vary based on headwinds at time. I've seen straight polar, a more curved polar, or direct East-West over India as you state.

huaiwei wrote:

airzim wrote:

SQ lost money the last time..

Could you back that up with actual statistics, rather than assumptions from an armchair?

I have the statistics - number of Singapore Airlines nonstop flights to the US per week - around Summer each year :

2005 - 14
2006 - 14
2007 - 14
2008 - 14
2009 - 10
2010 - 12
2011 - 12
2012 - 12
2013 - 11
2014 - 0
2015 - 0

That is the pattern of a route that is regarded as strategic or important, up to the point the losses become unsustainable.

incitatus wrote:

That is the pattern of a route that is regarded as strategic or important, up to the point the losses become unsustainable.

Yes indeed, that proves the flight was never profitable
First of all, the flights started in 2004: LAX in February and EWR in June.
The 2009 cuts were not just for these routes but network wide as the result of the global recession. Many airlines cut capacity and entire routes during that time.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... try-losses
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapo ... -11-a.html
That is all those number prove. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe lost in all this profit/loss discussion is that, so far as I recall, SQ pressed Airbus to further develop the A345 for them because they had maxed out their one-stop SIN-US bilateral rights and the ULR service would allow them to increase their market presence. No idea what the bilaterals allow these days.

Also worth bearing in mind that the A345 managed (at best?) Mach 0;82 whereas the A359ULR is probably doing 0;85, meaning shorter flight times at equal en-route conditions. Likely also gets to higher cruise altitudes faster, boosting fuel efficiency.