"There are afterall only five aircraft which is a small fleet compared to the number of A343's they took in P/exchange for the B777's.
It is unlikely that Boeing will buyback the A340-500s as they did with the -300s. It took Boeing some time to find a buyer for most of those aircraft. With the -500, which is much more of a niche product, the only way I see Boeing buying those aircraft from SQ
is if they already have a buyer lined up.
"A play with fire for SQ - Airbus just needs to state if SQ should dump the A345 in a similar deal such as the A343 deal, Airbus won´t bid for the 250-seater aka A350/B7E7.
, I have a lot of respect for you, especially your knowledge of the regional airliner industry. However, I would like to ask you to sit back and think about such a scenario. Are you honestly telling me that Airbus, after already being paid in full for the 5 A340-500's delivered to SQ
, will let emotions stand in the way of offering the proposed A350 to SQ
, possibly risking the launch of the aircraft itself? Where would that put Airbus in the long-term when it comes to the middle of the market? Just to prove my point - did Airbus refuse to offer the A380 to SQ
after the original A340 trade-in? Of course not. Your scenario is just not credible.
As to LCC's competing with SQ
, I definitely agree with you to some extent. However, until Asia has the international freedoms allowed in Europe or North America, I don't believe you will see the LCC's threaten the Asian legacy carriers nearly as much as elsewhere in the world.
"By the time they recieved a 747ADV, it would be almost 5 years anyway, which is long enough for SQ to dump the A380.
It's possible SQ
will order the 747Adv. to supplement
the A380, but it will not do so to replace
the A380. It simply is not going to happen.
"Hamlet...You are one of the few balanced voices on here. I was wondering if you would say the same about the A346 compared to the 777-300ER?
As I believe has already been mentioned on this thread, the A345 v. 772LR performance competition is perhaps the most tilted in favor of the twin than any other one-on-one A340/777 battle. The 772LR simply is a much better performing aicraft, assuming it lives up to its promised specs. OTOH, the performance of the A346 v. the 773ER is much closer. Some numbers have already been provided by fellow members, but just to compare: The 772LR carries a 12%
greater payload 5%
farther using 6%
* less fuel than the A345HGW. The 773ER carries a 7%
greater payload using 7%
* less fuel, but the ranges are nearly identical, with the A346HGW having a very slight (>1%
) advantage there.
* - using max. fuel volume as base. Actual fuel usage favors the 777 even more.
"If they really stuff 777-200LR with 301 seats. . .
, I don't think anyone on this (now very long) thread has suggested SQ
will configure a possible 772LR with the full complement of 301 seats. However, with the combination of extra floor space and greater payload capability, a 230-250 seat arrangement is very possible. Compare the revenue increase thus created, combined with the lower operating costs, and you see why the case is compelling for SQ
"However, due to ETOPS requirement, will it be required to take longer routes? I read in this forum a while ago that SQ A345 has a very flexible choice of flying paths, which allows them to take the greatest adventage of wind conditions, shorter flying distance, etc.
This summer, one of the trade magazines (IIRC, it was Airways, but someone please correct me) published a very thorough article about SQ
flight. In the article, both East-bound and West-bound routes were published. Both routes fit into existing ETOPS regulations, let alone the proposed increases.
All gave some. Some gave all.