Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
mattlancs
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:18 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 5:22 pm

currently in your country at the moment which curious layouts?
744 are man-sin lon-sin fra-sin sin-hkg sfo-sin la-sin mel-sin syd-sin brisbane and perth r 772.sin-akl sin-seoul sin-jfk sin-paris
772 and 773 r man-sin sin-akl sin-chc where u r and the rest of the routes inc sin-adelaide india africa and europe amritsar is 1 of there newest indian destinations
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:32 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 32):
However, the problem is that there is never a direct routing so the actual mileage is greater. Secondly there is a wind problem. In the winter time the "wind corrected" distance is well over 7000NM. The 380 can't do it full on a consistent basis.



Quoting N79969 (Reply 33):

Did Airbus initially promise that it would be able to do so?

It would be very odd had SQ planned SFO-HKG without assurances that the WhaleJet could fly it year-round with an acceptable payload. I don't know whether or not there are specific performance penalties in the contract to cover this case, but it would be very much like SQ to insist on such a clause. Having been burned on payload performance with both the A340-300 and the A340-500, my bet is that SQ insisted on well-defined penalties in the event of performance shortfalls. I think SQ would be just as tough with Boeing as with Airbus.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:37 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 51):
Having been burned on payload performance with both the A340-300 and the A340-500

Carefully now... still plenty here that beleive that is poppycock. I suggest qualifying the claim with some sort of solid source. Not that I do not believe you, but I hope you understand.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:47 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 52):
Carefully now... still plenty here that beleive that is poppycock. I suggest qualifying the claim with some sort of solid source. Not that I do not believe you, but I hope you understand.

Hmmm, how long did SQ keep their 343s? Did they take delivery of all on order? (No) I'd say that's a good indication for that aircraft.

For the 345, they had 5 options they passed on. They are seriously looking at the 772LR which offers more payload at the same range.

How are those for facts?
Fly fast, live slow
 
Tifoso
Posts: 432
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 9:15 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 7:51 pm

PhilSquares, there has been a lot of speculation about the order composition, and not so much when it will be announced.

Is there a possibility that we hear something at Asian Aerospace?

Thanks Big grin
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:11 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 53):

Hmmm, how long did SQ keep their 343s? Did they take delivery of all on order? (No) I'd say that's a good indication for that aircraft.

For the 345, they had 5 options they passed on. They are seriously looking at the 772LR which offers more payload at the same range.

How are those for facts?

Dude, its ok... I can see it for what it is.

I know, you know, Zvezda knows, but there are a certain number of people on these fora that simply do not want to see it that way.

They'll argue that there has been no public comment, therefore they (SQ) are happy.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:40 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 55):

They'll argue that there has been no public comment, therefore they (SQ) are happy.

The argument that there has been no public comment, therefore SQ are happy and the argument that there has been no public comment, therefore SQ are unhappy are equally invalid. As PhilSquares has pointed out, the available evidence supports all the private comments that SQ have not been happy with the A340-300 or the A340-500. Anyone who wants to doubt is free to doubt -- at least until SQ announce a B777-200LR order.
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2557
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:44 pm

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 56):

The argument that there has been no public comment, therefore SQ are happy and the argument that there has been no public comment, therefore SQ are unhappy are equally invalid. As PhilSquares has pointed out, the available evidence supports all the private comments that SQ have not been happy with the A340-300 or the A340-500. Anyone who wants to doubt is free to doubt -- at least until SQ announce a B777-200LR order.

I completely agree with you.

I've known for some time SQ are not happy with their A340s. I was just trying to protect you from trolling by flag wavers  Smile
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
Lufthansa747
Posts: 2952
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 7:45 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 8:52 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 40):
unlike AF, at least SQ likes to keep their planes clean, and being a niche plane, maybe they will pay some extra attention to it.......

Who gives a shit if the planes are dirty or clean. DP anf Krug please, I don't care what the outside looks like.
Air Asia Super Elite, Cebu Pacific Titanium
 
MarcoT
Posts: 248
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:55 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:04 pm

Quoting GARPD (Reply 55):

Dude, its ok... I can see it for what it is.

I know, you know, Zvezda knows, but there are a certain number of people on these fora that simply do not want to see it that way.

They'll argue that there has been no public comment, therefore they (SQ) are happy.

Now you are being disingenious, if not intellectually dishonest.

The claim was not that SQ was unhappy with the A343 or that the B777LR has better payload / range / whatever. It was that Airbus made specific performance guaranteees to SQ and that both the A343 and the A345 failed to meet them.

For the A343, since -as I understand- the main issue was climbing performance combined with traffic situation forcing the aircraft to stay at lower flight level for a protracted period of time it seem plausible, though -given the ill disguised schadenfreunde that a lot of otherwise knowledgeable people here exhibite whenever they may point a fault in Airbus or their aircraft- some sort of reference would be welcomed.

For the A345, well I really fail to see how pointing that SQ is evaluating a newer, better performing ac is any way a *proof* that the former failed its promised performances. It is indeed a confirm that the 777LR has better performances, but that was not in contention.
Too short space for my favorite hopelessly long winded one liner
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 9:55 pm

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 36):
The 744 can do it on a very regular basis. The only real problem is when the winds approach 99% worst case. In those cases, SQ will stop at TPE for a quick (45 min) tech stop.

So according to you, the 744 is able to do it on a more regular basis then
the A388 will?? If so, please explain, because I'm not completely following
you.
The projected A380 range is longer then the 744's (even ER version) so that
would mean the 747 performs a hell of a lot better in strong headwind
conditions, am I right?

Boeing site says 747-8 will have a range of 8000NM
Airbus site says A380 will do 8150NM

Why will the 747-8 be able to non-stop SFO-HKG all year round and the
A380 won't ???

I presume that both manufacterers provide their max ranges at MTOW?
Thanks in advance for your explanation, cos I know you know a lot more
about then I do !!
Cheers

Have a good sunday all!!!
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 10:44 pm

KLMCedric,

To put it simply, assuming those figures to be true and exact, are for the aircraft to be fully fueled. When an aircraft is fully fueled, it is not possible for it to be loaded to the maximum Zero Fuel Weight. Which means when the aircraft is fully fuelled, it is not possible for it to be filled with passengers and cargo to its full capacity because when you add the weight of the fuel and the that, it will exceed MTOW.

I don't know what the exact figures are, but it seems to imply that the A380 is not as economical as the B747 because of what it could carry for a plane of it's size. My guess is that the plane itself is already very heavy and in order to do that distance it has to carry much less cargo or passengers. Correct me if I am wrong.

[Edited 2006-02-05 14:47:02]
Boeing747 万岁!
 
flying-b773
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2001 11:24 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:10 pm

Generally, SQ1/2 does fairly well MOST of the year. However, there are extremes when SQ2 gets less then 1/2 full for the hkgsfo sector and instances when the flt is very much full. What it seems is that SFOHKG outperforms SQ2, which also means that it makes the task harder for the leg.

SQ12/11 is an overall performer, as strong as but usually overshadowed by the performance of SQ1/2. Guess the whale jet will serve this route more efficiently. SQ11 NRTSIN aint performing very well at times but the NRTLAX vv and SINNRT is constantly packed.

SQ16/15 started with a B744 in 1998 but downgraded to A343 within 2 years and then the 772ER took over when it comes into service. But I dont know how 16/15 did in the past, but now it performs well. SQ does very well to SFO and YVR via Incheon. I believe both flts has the potential of being upgraded, perhaps the 77W.

Actually I think SQ has quite a stuck up way of aircraft planning. They never change their aircraft according to demand. Seriously the 744 could be used when 3 X 772 (SINPER) couldnt meet demand. Its a shame that they are dumping the queen. They are the most boring airline to be.

Rgds,
North
 
Mr.BA
Posts: 3310
Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2000 12:26 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:21 pm

Quoting Flying-B773 (Reply 62):
Actually I think SQ has quite a stuck up way of aircraft planning. They never change their aircraft according to demand. Seriously the 744 could be used when 3 X 772 (SINPER) couldnt meet demand. Its a shame that they are dumping the queen. They are the most boring airline to be.

There is a reason why they wouldn't put a B744 to replace the B777 on the perth flights. Notice that they only deploy the 2 class B777s on the Perth route because there is low demand for first class on this route mainly only economy. These B777s can take more economy passengers than the B744 can. Not worth then to fly a much bigger plane which burns more fuel with empty first and business class.
Boeing747 万岁!
 
flying-b773
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2001 11:24 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:39 pm

I dont mean to say that SQ has to replace all the 3 flts all year round. Actually for example, SINPER.. The sector has no problem to sustain a big Business class cabin during peak period.. SINPER actually did better then what most of us would think.

There are flts which SQ actually Sold biz as economy and First as biz, and another instance F + C sold as business. The flts still went out full. Perhaps in terms of upgrading the aircraft they can do that? Still to fly a B744 would increase capacity in all classes, but perhaps you are right, it still doesnt really justify.

I am still unable to think why BA has to stop MEL services. Mel is a strong growing market... Perhaps SQ is right to focus on the under-served MEL. A380 shd go to MEL!! haha

Regards,
North
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:55 pm

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 60):
So according to you, the 744 is able to do it on a more regular basis then
the A388 will?? If so, please explain, because I'm not completely following
you.
The projected A380 range is longer then the 744's (even ER version) so that
would mean the 747 performs a hell of a lot better in strong headwind
conditions, am I right?

Boeing site says 747-8 will have a range of 8000NM
Airbus site says A380 will do 8150NM

Why will the 747-8 be able to non-stop SFO-HKG all year round and the
A380 won't ???

I presume that both manufacterers provide their max ranges at MTOW?
Thanks in advance for your explanation, cos I know you know a lot more
about then I do !!

I'll try to be brief.

1) That range is not with max payload or a nearly max payload. The 744/748 will be able to load just about all seats, respectable cargo and get off the ground. The 744 can't make in non-stop when the winds really blow over Japan (99% worst case winds). So, in those cases, as I wrote previously, there is a tech stop in TPE.

There was a post a few weeks ago where someone analyzed the 380 payload very well. The "normal operational range" of the 380 is around 7000nm. That's with a payload of pax and cargo. That's what pays the bills. Originally SQ was going to use the 380 on SQ 11/12. However, they have backed off that plan and right now the first 10 are not slated to see that route.

Quoting Flying-B773 (Reply 62):
Actually I think SQ has quite a stuck up way of aircraft planning. They never change their aircraft according to demand. Seriously the 744 could be used when 3 X 772 (SINPER) couldnt meet demand. Its a shame that they are dumping the queen. They are the most boring airline to be.

Boring they may very well be, but they are consistently profitable! In my opinion that's what counts. You make is sound as if it's just a matter of swapping equipment, that there are just spare aircraft sitting on the ramp. NOT SO! If they up gauge the SIN-PER, then they will have to downsize another route. In the bigger scheme of things it might not make financial sense to do that.

Quoting Flying-B773 (Reply 62):
SQ12/11 is an overall performer, as strong as but usually overshadowed by the performance of SQ1/2. Guess the whale jet will serve this route more efficiently. SQ11 NRTSIN aint performing very well at times but the NRTLAX vv and SINNRT is constantly packed.

I've operated both flights on numerous occasions. I don't think I've ever seen any leg on SQ11/12 less than 85%. I have sat in LAX while load control was trying to get every kg on the aircraft! What you fail to realize is you don't see what goes in the belly. I can guarantee you what payload is missing in pax numbers, it's made up for in cargo!
Fly fast, live slow
 
flying-b773
Posts: 378
Joined: Sat Apr 28, 2001 11:24 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:20 am

OOps, got shot in the head again...
I wasnt trying to say that SQ11/12 aint performing. I think it does perform very well, but well most people just think of SQ1/2... Of course the loads are all well, just that NRTSIN is the one that is fluctuating in Pax nos.. I aint taling into cargo because I hv no ways to check that.. haha.. Do pardon me on my remarks.. like this period Febuary, SQ11 NRTSIN aint well ... But still the other 3 legs does very very well , again in terms of pax ...

And also, in terms of switcing aircraft I dont mean to have xtra aircraft seating on the apron. My meaning is that perhaps the 2 routes example, can inertchange aircraft, not at the expense of anything. But still since they are making profits, why should i be bothered? haha.. please dont shoot me anymore..... haha

regards,
North
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:59 am

Quoting Lufthansa747 (Reply 58):

Who gives a shit if the planes are dirty or clean. DP anf Krug please, I don't care what the outside looks like.

your answer is below........

Quoting Trex8 (Reply 35):
Plus they had to wash the dirty plane and take off several hundred pounds of grime.
"Up the Irons!"
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:42 am

Quoting MarcoT (Reply 59):

Now you are being disingenious, if not intellectually dishonest.

The claim was not that SQ was unhappy with the A343 or that the B777LR has better payload / range / whatever. It was that Airbus made specific performance guaranteees to SQ and that both the A343 and the A345 failed to meet them.

For the A343....

For the A345, well I really fail to see how pointing that SQ is evaluating a newer, better performing ac is any way a *proof* that the former failed its promised performances. It is indeed a confirm that the 777LR has better performances, but that was not in contention.

No one is asserting that there is proof. There is however evidence. For example, it is known that SQ had planned, based on Airbus' performance promises, for 200+ seats including F class on their A340-500s. When actual payload/range performance became known, SQ had to cut back to 181 seats with no F class. That's not proof, but it is clear and convincing evidence.

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 60):
So according to you, the 744 is able to do it on a more regular basis then
the A388 will?? If so, please explain, because I'm not completely following
you.
The projected A380 range is longer then the 744's (even ER version) so that
would mean the 747 performs a hell of a lot better in strong headwind
conditions, am I right?

Boeing site says 747-8 will have a range of 8000NM
Airbus site says A380 will do 8150NM

The two range numbers are based on different payloads. To say that an airliner has a range of X without specifying the payload is like saying one can curl a dumbell X times without specifying the weight of the dumbell.

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 65):
The "normal operational range" of the 380 is around 7000nm.

That is consistent with unofficial reports of LH's analysis.
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:59 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 65):
The "normal operational range" of the 380 is around 7000nm. That's with a payload of pax and cargo.

And what would be the "normal operational range" of the 744,744ER and 748?
I'm sorry but I simply can not believe that the B744 (almost 20yr old)
could do SFO-HKG on a more regular basis then the A380.
I mean, if that were the case, why not shut down the whole A380 project
right now? What's the use to continue such a huge failure??

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 68):
The two range numbers are based on different payloads. To say that an airliner has a range of X without specifying the payload is like saying one can curl a dumbell X times without specifying the weight of the dumbell.

Airbus specifies the 8000nm number is with max passenger payload.
Boeing just states that 8000nm for it's 748 is the max range with no more
specifics.

Now what's the difference in those two numbers??
I still don't see why the 748 could fly it all year round and the A380 not!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:13 am

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 69):
And what would be the "normal operational range" of the 744,744ER and 748?
I'm sorry but I simply can not believe that the B744 (almost 20yr old)
could do SFO-HKG on a more regular basis then the A380.
I mean, if that were the case, why not shut down the whole A380 project
right now? What's the use to continue such a huge failure??

Before you get overly animated, consider that the messenger is a pilot for SIA (or perhaps among the most convincing liars ever). I think you can count on his remarks being accurate. I assume that he is correct and I do not think Airbus could or should abandon the A380 at this point. That would be a far bigger disaster than them having to pay contractual penalties to the airlines.
Do you really think they ought to quit?
 
Qantas744er
Posts: 1230
Joined: Sat Jun 04, 2005 4:36 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:20 am

Funny how people always try to discuss with pilots and tell them how the things are  Yeah sure

Cheers
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:33 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 70):
Do you really think they ought to quit?

If the range really is 7000nm, yes I think they should!
But I have reasons not to believe this!!
My father's (may he r.i.p.) best friend is very well acquainted with a
former SN A340 captain who became testpilot at Airbus. I had a chance
to chat with him last summer in Nice, and he told me totally different
numbers then I read here. And although he isn't A380 testpilot I would
like to believe I can trust him on this. Offcourse one could claim that an
Airbus pilot is biased, but then again , Philsquares has also more then once
seriously given me the impression he isn't totally impartial and objective
when it comes to the A-380.
Also, my uncle's brother-in-law is a retired SQ744 captain (Mr. Guy Vanderlinden, Phil you should know him I think) who just last week also told me very different more
positive numbers then I read on here!!!
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:35 am

Quoting Qantas744ER (Reply 71):
Funny how people always try to discuss with pilots and tell them how the things are

Funny at wich lightning speed you draw your conclusions!
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:35 am

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 69):

And what would be the "normal operational range" of the 744,744ER and 748?
I'm sorry but I simply can not believe that the B744 (almost 20yr old)
could do SFO-HKG on a more regular basis then the A380.
I mean, if that were the case, why not shut down the whole A380 project
right now? What's the use to continue such a huge failure??

Range is not the only reason to choose one airliner over another. The WhaleJet is expected to have lower CASM than the B747-400 or B747-400ER. For most routes, the WhaleJet's range/payload performance will be adequate.
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:36 am

Hum... how do you explain than that CX flies HKG-JFK nonstop bothways, using an A340-600 which has a stated range of 7500nm (that's 500nm less than the 380).
This considering they fly a plane with 3 classes, and the route is longer than HKG-LAX in terms of distance and time flown.

In face of this, why should the 380 have problems flying HKG-LAX?

Regards:
A360
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:46 am

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 72):
If the range really is 7000nm, yes I think they should!
But I have reasons not to believe this!!
My father's (may he r.i.p.) best friend is very well acquainted with a
former SN A340 captain who became testpilot at Airbus. I had a chance
to chat with him last summer in Nice, and he told me totally different
numbers then I read here. And although he isn't A380 testpilot I would
like to believe I can trust him on this. Offcourse one could claim that an
Airbus pilot is biased, but then again , Philsquares has also more then once
seriously given me the impression he isn't totally impartial and objective
when it comes to the A-380.
Also, my uncle's brother-in-law is a retired SQ744 captain (Mr. Guy Vanderlinden, Phil you should know him I think) who just last week also told me very different more
positive numbers then I read on here!!!

That is all fine and I will take you at your word. But why don't you simply present the information you have, explain the technical reasons why you think it is correct rather than get upset about Phil's remarks? That would actually contribute to discussion.

I think Phil is pretty objective. But his company is pissed off at Airbus for delivering their airplane 6 months behind schedule. He has simply communicated that fact. Like I said I will trust you at your word, but I consider it important that Phil's information is pretty-much first hand from a guy who works at the company that is first in line to receive the A380.
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:15 am

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 69):
And what would be the "normal operational range" of the 744,744ER and 748?
I'm sorry but I simply can not believe that the B744 (almost 20yr old)
could do SFO-HKG on a more regular basis then the A380.
I mean, if that were the case, why not shut down the whole A380 project
right now? What's the use to continue such a huge failure??



Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 69):
Airbus specifies the 8000nm number is with max passenger payload.
Boeing just states that 8000nm for it's 748 is the max range with no more
specifics.

Now what's the difference in those two numbers??
I still don't see why the 748 could fly it all year round and the A380 not!



Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 72):
If the range really is 7000nm, yes I think they should!
But I have reasons not to believe this!!
My father's (may he r.i.p.) best friend is very well acquainted with a
former SN A340 captain who became testpilot at Airbus. I had a chance
to chat with him last summer in Nice, and he told me totally different
numbers then I read here. And although he isn't A380 testpilot I would
like to believe I can trust him on this. Offcourse one could claim that an
Airbus pilot is biased, but then again , Philsquares has also more then once
seriously given me the impression he isn't totally impartial and objective
when it comes to the A-380.
Also, my uncle's brother-in-law is a retired SQ744 captain (Mr. Guy Vanderlinden, Phil you should know him I think) who just last week also told me very different more
positive numbers then I read on here!!!

I am not going to get drawn into an online debate with you, it's pointless. You referred to the 346. The seating capacity, according to Airbus is 380 http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...330a340/a340-600/cabin_layout.html while CX operates their 346 at 286 http://www.cathaypacific.com/intl/inflight/fleet/0,,91302,00.html. That's the difference fo 100 pax! Now tell me how that matches what Airbus has as the capacity? It doesn't. The reduced seating capacity is for range. The same problem the 380 has.

This thread is about SQ's fleet plans, not an A v. B debate. Do a little research on line and look at the book fleet plans of Airbus and what airlines operate them at. You'll find a vast difference.
Fly fast, live slow
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:30 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 77):
You referred to the 346. The seating capacity, according to Airbus is 380 http://www.airbus.com/en/aircraftfam...330a340/a340-600/cabin_layout.html while CX operates their 346 at 286 http://www.cathaypacific.com/intl/inflight/fleet/0,,91302,00.html. That's the difference fo 100 pax! Now tell me how that matches what Airbus has as the capacity? It doesn't. The reduced seating capacity is for range.

Oh really?!
So, are you saying that if the 346 had unlimited range, CX would fit them with 380 seats?!  Yeah sure

CX fits them 346's in a 3 class config with 286 seats, which is normal for a company like CX, for long haul flights. (Thai fits them with 267 seats, for example).


By that logic it would be like this: ANA fits their 773ER's for long haul with a total of 247 seats... that must mean that the 773ER range sucks, right?!  Yeah sure


You could say that the 380 seats in 3 class isn't realistic by todays standarts, but thats another subject, and the same happens at Boeing too(maybe not as much as in A).

Regards:
A360
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:40 am

Quoting N79969 (Reply 76):
That is all fine and I will take you at your word. But why don't you simply present the information you have, explain the technical reasons why you think it is correct rather than get upset about Phil's remarks? That would actually contribute to discussion.

A "presentation of info and explanation of technical reasons" is what I was looking for in the first place as to why the A380 couldn't do SFO-HKG
year round and the 748 could, but I didn't get much more then "Boeing and
Airbus use different numbers, you can't compare it", hence me pushing a
bit more thru on this subject!

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 77):
I am not going to get drawn into an online debate with you, it's pointless. You referred to the 346.

I didn't at any point in this thread refer to the A346.
I'm not looking for a debate, I probably don't posses the knowledge to debate
with you. I'm looking for a qualitative explanation of the subject at hand.
Saying that it's pointless is in fact saying that I'm a stubborn little brat
that won't except any other version then his own, wich is highly untrue,
I'm somewhat offended by that remark.

My question remains extremely easy:

Airbus says :A380 will fly 8000nm
Boeing says: B748 will fly 8000nm

Question: What's the difference between these two numbers, and why should the 748 be able to perform nonstop SFO-HKG yearround and the A380 not???

That's all there's to it!!!
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:41 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 78):

Oh really?!
So, are you saying that if the 346 had unlimited range, CX would fit them with 380 seats?! Yeah sure

That clearly was not stated nor was it even implied. Why do you resort to hyperbole?

Quoting A360 (Reply 78):
By that logic it would be like this: ANA fits their 773ER's for long haul with a total of 247 seats... that must mean that the 773ER range sucks, right?! Yeah sure

In the case of ANA, they have configured that airplane for a high proportion of premium seats. They are not taking a penalty because of a performance shortfall as is the case for the A340-600.
 
mattlancs
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:18 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 8:47 am

they plan to retire six more 744 this year what will that mean
 
PhilSquares
Posts: 3371
Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 6:06 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:04 am

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 79):
A "presentation of info and explanation of technical reasons" is what I was looking for in the first place as to why the A380 couldn't do SFO-HKG

I've tried to tell you what various operators are using as an "operational range". Nothing more, nothing less. I do have a life and sadly it's not giving lectures on the technical aspects of the 380. I personally don't care if you believe what I write or not.

I do know for a fact, LH has capped the 380 range at 6900NM, CX has told Airbus they will not look at the current 380 because of the performance problems and high fuel burn/seat in a "typical" configuration, not the 550 Airbus uses.

Finally, SQ has changed their marketing plans to limit the 380 to SIN-LHR/SIN-SYD. Take it for what it's worth. I'm off to watch the Super Bowl!
Fly fast, live slow
 
klmcedric
Posts: 696
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:19 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:30 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 82):
Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 79):
A "presentation of info and explanation of technical reasons" is what I was looking for in the first place as to why the A380 couldn't do SFO-HKG

I'm afraid you're quoting the wrong part of my response .

Try this

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 79):
My question remains extremely easy:

Airbus says :A380 will fly 8000nm
Boeing says: B748 will fly 8000nm

Question: What's the difference between these two numbers, and why should the 748 be able to perform nonstop SFO-HKG yearround and the A380 not???
 
dalecary
Posts: 834
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2000 10:28 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:19 am

Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 82):
Finally, SQ has changed their marketing plans to limit the 380 to SIN-LHR/SIN-SYD. Take it for what it's worth. I'm off to watch the Super Bowl!

Does that mean further 380 orders are unlikely from SQ??? Consequently, this would seem to be possible good news for the 748I at SQ. Pretty worrying stuff for the whole A380 program IMO.
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:22 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 78):
Oh really?!
So, are you saying that if the 346 had unlimited range, CX would fit them with 380 seats?!  

CX fits them 346's in a 3 class config with 286 seats, which is normal for a company like CX, for long haul flights. (Thai fits them with 267 seats, for example).

All they are saying is that you can't make predictions about meeting range claims based on the A346 in CX's configuration if the aircraft isn't carrying the design payload for the claimed range.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27614
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:25 am

Quoting KLMCedric (Reply 79):
Question: What's the difference between these two numbers, and why should the 748 be able to perform nonstop SFO-HKG yearround and the A380 not???

Perhaps the A380 is fuel-weight limited at the edge of her range envelope, where the 747-8 isn't?

So an A380 can't carry enough fuel volume to make the run 100% of the time, where the 747-8 can?
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:31 am

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 84):

Does that mean further 380 orders are unlikely from SQ??? Consequently, this would seem to be possible good news for the 748I at SQ. Pretty worrying stuff for the whole A380 program IMO.

Well, maybe they will once Airbus gets updated engines using GEnx/Trent1000/Trent1700 tech on the A380. But I don't think that is going to be anytime soon.
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 10:45 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 75):
Hum... how do you explain than that CX flies HKG-JFK nonstop bothways, using an A340-600 which has a stated range of 7500nm (that's 500nm less than the 380).
This considering they fly a plane with 3 classes, and the route is longer than HKG-LAX in terms of distance and time flown.

In face of this, why should the 380 have problems flying HKG-LAX?

There are two problems with your analogy:
1) As already pointed out, CX fit their A340-600s with 100 fewer seats than the "standard" Airbus configuration so, of course, they can squeeze out more range.
2) You are comparing distances over ground, rather than distances through the air, which is what determines range. The headwinds on SFO/LAX-HKG are much more severe than for JFK-HKG.

Quoting N79969 (Reply 76):
I think Phil is pretty objective. But his company is pissed off at Airbus for delivering their airplane 6 months behind schedule.

March to May to November is 8 months behind schedule, not 6 months, counting both delays.

Quoting A360 (Reply 78):

So, are you saying that if the 346 had unlimited range, CX would fit them with 380 seats?!

He neither said nor implied that. All he said was that the example you gave didn't prove the point you were trying to prove because CX's A340-600s carry less payload -- which is correct.

Quoting Dalecary (Reply 84):

Does that mean further 380 orders are unlikely from SQ???

Unlikely, certainly. Impossible, no. If Airbus can improve range/payload performance and reduce CASM, then I think SQ would consider exercising WhaleJet options. This could, in theory, be done by reducing weight, reducing SFC, or by reducing aerodynamic drag.
 
A360
Posts: 426
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:41 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:06 am

Quoting Zvezda (Reply 88):
There are two problems with your analogy:
1) As already pointed out, CX fit their A340-600s with 100 fewer seats than the "standard" Airbus configuration so, of course, they can squeeze out more range.
2) You are comparing distances over ground, rather than distances through the air, which is what determines range. The headwinds on SFO/LAX-HKG are much more severe than for JFK-HKG.

1)SIA 380's will have also fewer seats than the "standart" 555 for a 3 class config

2) I know that... that's why I said that HKG-JFK is longer not only indistance but also in flight duration(which obviously takes winds into account)

The NYC-HKG leg has a duration of 16h00min (EWR-HKG flown with a 772ER(mach 0.84) by continental... I'm using the 777 for more accurate comparison)
The LAX-HKG leg has a duration of 15h30min (flown with a 744 (mach 0.855)).

That's half an hour more... even if the 744 flies slightly faster than the 777, it's not much relevant.

My point being: the JFK-HKG leg is on average longer (taking winds into account) than the LAX-HKG leg.


Regards:
A360
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:14 am

Quoting A360 (Reply 89):

My point being: the JFK-HKG leg is on average longer (taking winds into account) than the LAX-HKG leg.

On an average day, the WhaleJet can fly SFO/LAX-HKG nonstop with a commercially viable payload. It is the days that fall outside the average that are the problem. Airlines don't want to make unscheduled tech stops 50 days per year. 5 days per year is about the limit of what an airline may tolerate. More than that and they start thinking about (seasonally) scheduling the tech stop.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2518
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:39 am

Refer to the A388 site for the payload range chart

Basically it carries 83t up to 6,600 nm; steady down to 35t at 8,600nm; and 0t @ 9,500nm.

Refer to the 747-8i payload range chart on the Boeing site. 80t up to 6,700nm; steady down to 55t at 8,200nm; and 0t @ 9,500nm.

The freighters are:

A388F Basically it carries 150t up to 5,600 nm; steady down to 90t at 8,300nm; and 0t @ 10,300nm

Refer to the 747-8Fi payload range chart on the Boeing site. 140t up to4,500nm; steady down to 90t at 7,500nm; and 0t @ 9,700nm

At a 7,500 nm distance the 748i has 65t payload, the A380 has 63t. For a route this range, the 747-8i would carry as much and burn substantially less fuel. Yes both planes may even fly 9,000 nm but with not meaningful payloads. At 7,500 nm the A380 can only carry 75% of its max payload.
 
N79969
Posts: 6605
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2002 1:43 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 11:53 am

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 91):
At a 7,500 nm distance the 748i has 65t payload, the A380 has 63t. For a route this range, the 747-8i would carry as much and burn substantially less fuel. Yes both planes may even fly 9,000 nm but with not meaningful payloads. At 7,500 nm the A380 can only carry 75% of its max payload.

Wow...Those are brutal numbers for the A380. I have read a a couple of articles saying that Boeing expects to sell some 748 pax in the near future and Boeing recently revised its 2006 sales projections. Maybe this is why...
 
zvezda
Topic Author
Posts: 8886
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 8:48 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:46 pm

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 91):
Refer to the A388 site for the payload range chart

Basically it carries 83t up to 6,600 nm; steady down to 35t at 8,600nm; and 0t @ 9,500nm.

Refer to the 747-8i payload range chart on the Boeing site. 80t up to 6,700nm; steady down to 55t at 8,200nm; and 0t @ 9,500nm.

The reason why the payload range charts (called Z charts) have the shape they do is: where the line starts to slope downward, one has to remove payload in order to load more fuel (to keep within MTOW), then the line starts sloping more steeply downward where the fuel tanks are full and reducing payload reduces TOW rather than adds fuel. In other words, along the gently sloping part of the line the aircraft is at MTOW -- trading payload for fuel as it moves along that part of the line. Along the horizontal line, the aircraft is at full payload but below MTOW because little fuel is needed. Along the steeply sloping part of the line, the aircraft is at full fuel but below MTOW because the payload is very light.
 
aerlinguscargo
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 8:28 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:02 pm

Quoting Mattlancs (Reply 81):
they plan to retire six more 744 this year what will that mean

Any idea what the plans are for these birds.

d
 
mattlancs
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:18 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:05 pm

how do they decide which registrations are used on which flights
 
intothinair
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:16 pm

So much here has been discussed on what routes the A380 will fly on, however not the 773ER, so does anyone know the first routes the 773ER will fly on, ZRH, CDG, AKL, MAN???

cheers, Konstantin G
 
mattlancs
Posts: 70
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 1:18 am

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:19 pm

773 will obviously replace 744's on existing routes for example sin-syd sin-mel man-sin
 
intothinair
Posts: 479
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 3:05 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:46 pm

Quoting Mattlancs (Reply 97):
773 will obviously replace 744's on existing routes for example sin-syd sin-mel man-sin

not exactly true, i've heard that the 773ER will seat 278 people, whilst the 744 seats 375, thats 97 seats less, thus the 773ER will not directly replace the 744's.
In fact, if this number "278" is correct the 773ER will seat less people than the 772ER mainly due to it being configured in a 3 class configuration and probably with more pitch as well. So what are the routes of the 773ER going to be? my guess is a destination where business demand is high and economy not so much as I am sure(Judging from the total seat numbers) that the 773ER will have a large C and F class compartment(Similar to the 744) and a much smaller Y class compartment.

cheers, Konstantin G
 
atmx2000
Posts: 4301
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:24 pm

RE: SQ Fleet Changes For 2006

Mon Feb 06, 2006 2:25 pm

http://www.content.airbusworld.com/S...a/docs/AC/DATA_CONSULT/AC_A380.pdf

http://www.boeing.com/assocproducts/aircompat/7478brochure.pdf

Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 91):
At a 7,500 nm distance the 748i has 65t payload, the A380 has 63t. For a route this range, the 747-8i would carry as much and burn substantially less fuel. Yes both planes may even fly 9,000 nm but with not meaningful payloads. At 7,500 nm the A380 can only carry 75% of its max payload.

The payload at 8000nm for the A388 is ~52 metric tons or ~114,000 lbs, enough for ~550 passengers+luggage.

The payload at 8000nm for the 747-8I is also ~114,000 lbs, obviously far more than needed for 450 passengers+luggage. That leaves plenty of capacity for cargo. The 747-8I is an odd platform, with max range for the design payload occuring in the maxed out fuel volume portion of the payload range curve, so they are cutting payload and reducing take off weight to travel further rather than cutting payload and adding an equal weight of additional fuel. With some additional tankage, they could get range at design payload out to ~8600nm. The amount of payload they are dropping to increase range is ~15,000 lbs, which gets you ~8,500 liters of fuel. They certainly have the volume for it after passenger baggage, with revenue cargo volume of 3190 cu ft. A 772LR belly tank stores 7000 liters and takes up ~315 cu ft.

The A380 has a similar revenue cargo volume at design payload as the 747-8I. The problem is that at 8000nm for 550 pax, there is no payload capacity to utilize it as TOW is at MTOW with fuel + passengers and their luggage only, while the 747-8I has ~18,000 lbs of payload capacity available. At a reduced load of 480 passengers, the A388 frees up some 14,000 lbs of payload but they also free up more than 300 cu ft of cargo space. The same cargo density still can't be carried on the A388 as a result. I would imagine airlines are trying to find the sweet spot in terms of passenger seating, revenue cargo volume and weight, fuel and range for the A388 that would maximize revenue. The range at that sweet spot is well below that of the 747-8I, likely because the easiest way to free up weight under MTOW is to cut fuel. This allows for greater passenger+cargo weight, maximal use of passenger and cargo space, and reduces fuel expenses.

[Edited 2006-02-06 06:56:43]
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos