Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
Miami
Topic Author
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:37 pm

Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 11:53 am

Tomorrow (November 23) will be the FINAL flight of SQ A340 on SIN-EWR (SQ 21-22). Ending the World's longest flight.

SQ placed an order in 1999 for 5 Airbus A340-500 with 5 on options

The following is the past SQ A340-500 scheduled routes, taken from OAG Schedules Analyser.

Singapore – Bangkok 01FEB04 One-off service (SQ510/511)
Singapore – Jakarta 01FEB04 – 24NOV08 (Up to 2 daily flights until 31OCT08, 1 weekly in Nov 2008)
Singapore – Los Angeles 03FEB04 – 20OCT13 (1 daily. SQ reduced service to 5 weekly from 01MAR09 to 30SEP10 and from 01MAY11 onwards)
Singapore – Newark 28JUN04 – 23NOV13 (Initially operates 1 daily. SQ reduced service to 5 weekly from 02APR09 to 18JAN10, 6 weekly from 01APR13 onwards)

The SQ A345 has had a nice run and will be deeply missed.   



-Miami   
Aviation is proof that given, the will, we have the capacity to achieve the impossible. - Eddie Rickenbacker
 
TC957
Posts: 4058
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 1:12 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:38 pm

I hope that the direct LAX & EWR runs will be back in future once next generation versions of the big twins becomes available. I guess SQ's decision on that is how the business community react to the loss of the direct services.
And of course, future oil prices.
Farewell indeed SQ A345's, gorgeous birds that they are.
 
jfk777
Posts: 7470
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:49 pm

Would an A359-900 be able to do Newark and/or LAX nonstop from Singapore.
 
carledwards
Posts: 215
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 2:32 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 12:59 pm

Quoting Miami (Thread starter):
Tomorrow (November 23) will be the FINAL flight of SQ A340 on SIN-EWR (SQ 21-22). Ending the World's longest flight.

what will be the world's longest flight when this stops?
Extraordinary World
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:04 pm

Quoting carledwards (Reply 3):
what will be the world's longest flight when this stops?

QF7 between Sydney and Dallas, operated by a B744.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight#Longest_flights

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Would an A359-900 be able to do Newark and/or LAX nonstop from Singapore.

Impossible (at least not in a default 3-class configuration with 300 seats).

[Edited 2013-11-22 05:06:50]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
parapente
Posts: 3061
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2006 10:42 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:23 pm

I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.
This is not the only ULH route that has failed/been withdrawn. This was an all high yeild flight and (whatever people may day) using a pretty efficient aircraft yet not profitable. The 772LR ULH routes have not fared much better (although obviously using 10-15% less fuel - but still alot of the stuff).People would rather pay less and stretch their legs on the 'break' it seems.
IMHO 'one stop' will be the only way people want to go on long distances -hence the rise and rise of ME3.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10360
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:40 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
Impossible (at least not in a default 3-class configuration with 300 seats).

I wouldn't expect SQ to put 300 seats in it if they were to resume these ULH routes. EWR is a significantly heavy busines market while LAX is more of a typical market. SQ doesn't need and probably doesn't want much of a Y cabin. I'm guessing a 4-class subfleet with a large J cabin would make these routes possible so I'm leaning heavily towards the camp that says SQ will bring back these routes once they have more real evidence on the airplane's capabilities.
 
User avatar
EPA001
Posts: 3893
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2006 8:13 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 1:46 pm

Quoting Miami (Thread starter):
The SQ A345 has had a nice run and will be deeply missed.  

Indeed she will. Still the most beautiful airliner ever build in civil aviation history. But time and technology and economics move on. And have made sure that the A340's (including this -500 version) will soon be out of operation with more and more airlines who operate them.  
 
User avatar
AA777223
Posts: 1084
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:12 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 2:06 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):

I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

I find this so strange. I took a few trips to Asia this year. I flew AA's ORD-PVG, PVG-LAX and UA's EWR-HKG service. The AA flights were in F, while UA was in J (PMCO config, of course). All of these flights were in the 15.5-16 hour range. How is it that these flights can be this long and run all the time, packed to the gills, but everyone freaks out at the prospect of 17 hours SIN-EWR? Ironically, on my UA EWR-HKG flights, I continued on to SIN, and I would have much rather just stayed on the plane than go to the United club for two hours, and get back on another 3.5 hour flight.

I realize from an aircraft economics perspective that edge of the flight envelope gets geometrically more expensive, but from the passengers' perspectives, 15, 16 or 17 hours - what's the difference? I sure wouldn't be able to tell the marginal increase after that long. I flew back from Hong Kong on an ancient UA 744...in Y, like YY (all of F,J,and Y+ was full when I made my last minute flight change). That flight was infinitely more comfortable than an IST-IAH flight I took on TK earlier this year of only 12 hours. That was the most uncomfortable I have ever been on a plane.
A318/19/20/21, A300, A332/3, A343/6, A388, L1011, DC-9, DC-10, MD-11, MD-80, B722, B732/3/4/5/7/8/9, B743/4/4M, B752/3, B762/3/4, B772/E/W, B788/9, F-100, CRJ-200/700/900, ERJ-135/145/175/190, DH-8, ATR-72, DO-328, BAE-146
 
loalq
Posts: 209
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:24 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:05 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane.
Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
but everyone freaks out at the prospect of 17 hours SIN-EWR?

I've done this flight before and I can assure you it is not half as bad as some think. It is not significantly different than a 13-14hr flight of which there are plenty of routes out there. For me it would ALWAYS be a joy to fly straight to my destination, maybe not if I was in economy but that's not the case with this flight.
"...this is your captain speaking. We have a small problem. All four engines have stopped."
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2594
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:06 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):

I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

I flew SIN-EWR-SIN in J back when the Spacebeds were still around and this flight had Executive Economy. Even in the Spacebeds, the flight was very comfortable. I remember it had three meals and it easily allowed two sleep cycles of 5-6hrs each.

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
using a pretty efficient aircraft yet not profitable.

Actually the A345 is not very efficient. It mainly has to do with the fact that you have to carry a lot of fuel to burn the fuel needed for the flight.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
but everyone freaks out at the prospect of 17 hours SIN-EWR?

Agreed. Admittedly, the SIN-EWR flight typically clocked in at around 18.5hrs.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
and I would have much rather just stayed on the plane than go to the United club for two hours, and get back on another 3.5 hour flight.

Also agreed. I really, really wish we will see a non-stop from SIN to the US in the future.

Cheers
Coal
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:13 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 2):
Would an A359-900 be able to do Newark and/or LAX nonstop from Singapore.

Doubtful, but the 777-8X would be able to, and I would expect that in the same all business class configuration, the 777-8X should be able to fit one more row, giving it a four seat advantage over the current A340-500, along with significant fuel burn improvements.

But I digress. The A340-500 is a very pretty aircraft, and the concept of flying ultra long haul in a widebody configured in an all business class configuration is unique. Unfortunately, I have never been able to experience it. I hope SQ considers re-opening this route once newer ULH aircraft (777-8X) becomes available.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
airbazar
Posts: 10360
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 3:54 pm

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):
I find this so strange. I took a few trips to Asia this year. I flew AA's ORD-PVG, PVG-LAX and UA's EWR-HKG service. The AA flights were in F, while UA was in J (PMCO config, of course). All of these flights were in the 15.5-16 hour range. How is it that these flights can be this long and run all the time, packed to the gills, but everyone freaks out at the prospect of 17 hours SIN-EWR?

Because it's a myth. The reason more of these flights don't exist is not because of lack of demand. It's because they are expensive for the airlines to operate. Lower the operating cost and the flight becomes viable again.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2951
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:12 pm

IMHO, ULH flying will always be uneconomical because of the extra fuel that is needed to be carried.

Solution: air to air refueling... I am mostly kidding but a little serious...why not?
 
ORDJOE
Posts: 684
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:27 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:12 pm

In SQ J there are plenty that would rather be in flight for 18 hours than to make a connection that there is a risk of missing.

Perhaps the 77L could have worked on this. It would be nice to see this route come back sometime in the future.
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:44 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Indeed she will. Still the most beautiful airliner ever build in civil aviation history.

It is indeed a beautiful airplane but IMHO the honor of MOST beautiful has to go to the Super VC-10.
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
BoeingMerica
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 4:39 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:52 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
IMHO 'one stop' will be the only way people want to go on long distances -hence the rise and rise of ME3.

I don't think the ME3 have come from the idea that people dont want to spend that long on a plane. The ME3 are there to service people who want to go from A to B where direct service does not make sense. They serve people going from Manchester to Delhi, obviously direct service could not be a profitable venture.

For instance, LHR-SYD could probably be profitable if a plane was able to make the route.

I think one day, routes like this will indeed return.

BoeingMerica
I like my Barack like I like my vegetables, I hate vegetables
 
User avatar
SFOA380
Posts: 580
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:35 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 4:54 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):

I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

This has absolutely zero to do with why these flights failed. I think you would find the vast majority of travelers (even leisure travelers) would prefer nonstop vs. connecting regardless of stage length.
 
dfambro
Posts: 334
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:32 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:49 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.
This is not the only ULH route that has failed/been withdrawn. This was an all high yeild flight and (whatever people may day) using a pretty efficient aircraft yet not profitable. The 772LR ULH routes have not fared much better (although obviously using 10-15% less fuel - but still alot of the stuff).People would rather pay less and stretch their legs on the 'break' it seems.

I guess it's piling on at this point, but, I live in Boston and everyone I know who goes to Singapore either takes EWR-SIN or wishes they could take EWR-SIN. I've never heard anyone say they prefer a layover somewhere. I have heard plenty of people say the flight is too expensive for them to take, so they're doing a layover (in Asia) itinerary.

It's worth mentioning that all these folks are starting in BOS and connecting through EWR.
 
User avatar
solnabo
Posts: 5025
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 8:53 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 5:50 pm

Quoting Miami (Thread starter):
The SQ A345 has had a nice run and will be deeply missed.

You are so right     

//Mike
Airbus SAS - Love them both
 
SIA747Megatop
Posts: 413
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:36 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:15 pm

I was the youngest unaccompanied minor on the inaugural flight to NYC, I was 9 at the time.

Have taken the flights at least 10-15 times since and thoroughly enjoyed them. Shame to see these beauties go!
I found the edit signature button
 
DDR
Posts: 1738
Joined: Sat Sep 28, 2013 11:09 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 6:31 pm

Goodbye to a beautiful plane  
 
niconet
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 7:24 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:22 pm

What will be the fate of these 5 A345?
I´ve heard AR was interested but I think something failed on negotiations, ans Airbus won´t keep them as a suvenir...

Cheers  
Nico.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
Quoting carledwards (Reply 3):
what will be the world's longest flight when this stops?

QF7 between Sydney and Dallas, operated by a B744.

It only operates nonstop in one direction. I believe the longest nonstop in both directions will now be DL ATL-JNB-ATL (77L).
 
blueflyer
Posts: 4352
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:17 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

Work, relax, sleep twice. There are far worse ways to fly than these flights, I assure you. None of the connecting flights that will be needed to replace the A345s are appealing.
 
A346Dude
Posts: 1161
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:23 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Fri Nov 22, 2013 8:29 pm

You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
 
Mortyman
Posts: 5941
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:02 am

Sad to see another A340 route og ... Best looking pax Aircraft in the world !
 
burchfiel
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:34 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:17 am

It's a shame to see this very special route come to an end. I'm sure that SQ will make the flight a special occasion and that lots of pictures will be posted online afterwards. It provides some consolation that the new longest non-stop flight will still be operated with a four-holer, and none other than the Queen of the Skies.
 
9v-svc
Posts: 1703
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 5:19 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:03 am

Op: SQ flew the A345 on flight SQ510/511 for a couple of weeks, not a one-off flight. I flew on a Monday and came back 2 days later.

The A345, what a beauty she is! Certainly served the airline very well and like the 747-400, it would be sorely missed!
Airliners is the wings of my life.
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:41 am

A question about the SX A345s, are any of them from AC or where did the A345s that AC had go?
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
CXB77L
Posts: 2613
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:18 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 4:57 am

Quoting brilondon (Reply 29):
A question about the SX A345s, are any of them from AC or where did the A345s that AC had go?

Assuming you meant SQ and not SX, none. All of SQ's A345s are new builds.

AC's A345s went to TAM.
Boeing 777 fanboy
 
Max Q
Posts: 8900
Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 12:40 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:23 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):


I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

I completely disagree.

Quoting AA777223 (Reply 8):

I find this so strange. I took a few trips to Asia this year. I flew AA's ORD-PVG, PVG-LAX and UA's EWR-HKG service. The AA flights were in F, while UA was in J (PMCO config, of course). All of these flights were in the 15.5-16 hour range. How is it that these flights can be this long and run all the time, packed to the gills, but everyone freaks out at the prospect of 17 hours SIN-EWR? Ironically, on my UA EWR-HKG flights, I continued on to SIN, and I would have much rather just stayed on the plane than go to the United club for two hours, and get back on another 3.5 hour flight.

Exactly, reducing overall flight time, connections with the fatigue and stress involved is far more important than just having to 'sit there for a little longer'



Ulr flights rule, they are the future for people wanting to shrink the globe. This is just a setback and technology will provide the answer to the 'tyranny of distance'
The best contribution to safety is a competent Pilot.


GGg
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 6:32 am

This kind of trip SIN-EWR is 8300nm still air distance if they can fly true great circle, then the fuel consumption and fuel costs are (with 1000$ per tonne which is close to the IATA daily price for JetA1):


................Trip fuel....Cost......%..........Cabin L*W m
A345...........143t......143k$...100..........55*5.28
200LR..........127t.....127k$......89..........49*5.87
777-8...........115t.....115k$......81..........55*5.97


For the 345 vs 200LR it is a matter how much extra revenue one can make of the extra cabin with, for J can one pack one more seat per row in those 0.6m?

If one can't then it would be say 3 rows of 4 = 12 seats that the 345 would have more to pay for 16k$ of fuel, =1300$ each which should be doable, ie the LR does not change the picture. The 8 would fly the same cabin length, would the extra 0.1m pack one more J seats abrest? It saves 28k$ fuel per trip but I am no sure the engine maintenance on a GE9X is cheaper then 2 off T500?

[Edited 2013-11-22 22:38:40]
Non French in France
 
RussianJet
Posts: 5983
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 4:15 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:56 am

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

I guess I must be crazy then - I certainly want to (especially on an A345!). Sometimes even on a 12hr flight in Y, if the entertainment is good and the crew are nice, I just sort of find myself in a bubble away from reality on the ground and feeling really disappointed when the time comes for descent. Anyway, I digress...

Real shame to see this come to an end - pretty much THE most beautiful airliner in the world, on a lovely prestigious route, with a great airline and a sleek livery....what's not to like?

Farewell!
✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
 
LPSHobby
Posts: 454
Joined: Tue May 01, 2007 9:14 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:53 am

Quoting airbazar (Reply 12):
Quoting airbazar (Reply 12):
Because it's a myth. The reason more of these flights don't exist is not because of lack of demand. It's because they are expensive for the airlines to operate. Lower the operating cost and the flight becomes viable again.

so can they come back with the 777-8X ?
 
docpepz
Posts: 1706
Joined: Thu May 24, 2001 8:20 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 10:29 am

SQ's EWRSIN had an average 75% load factor, so there was significant demand for them. It is a bit silly for SQ to give up 75 J pax a day to EWR and 70 J pax a day to LAX in each direction, unfortunately from a cost perspective it makes more financial sense for them to gift CX and others these pax than to carry them themselves
 
brilondon
Posts: 3164
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 11:25 am

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 30):
Assuming you meant SQ and not SX, none. All of SQ's A345s are new builds.

AC's A345s went to TAM.

Yes, sorry that is what I meant. Are they still in use or have they been sold since, the frames from AC?
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
9VSIO
Posts: 654
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 5:00 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:06 pm

Quoting niconet (Reply 22):
What will be the fate of these 5 A345?

Airbus has bought them back as part of a new aircraft deal (A350, iirc).
Me: (Lining up on final) I shall now select an aiming point. || Instructor: Well, I hope it's the runway...
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 4574
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 12:18 pm

Quoting EPA001 (Reply 7):
Still the most beautiful airliner ever build in civil aviation history.

   Nothing else comes close.

Quoting niconet (Reply 22):
What will be the fate of these 5 A345?
9V-SGA has arrived for storage at LDE Lourdes Tarbes. Hopefully this won't be her last landing. At the very least, it would be nice for one to find its way into that aviation museum at Toulouse. One assumes that the remainder of the Singapore Airlines A340-500 fleet will arrive there eventually.


Aéroport Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées by F-GOTPA, on Flickr


Aéroport Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées by F-GOTPA, on Flickr


Aéroport Tarbes-Lourdes-Pyrénées by F-GOTPA, on Flickr

Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
Yes, sorry that is what I meant. Are they still in use or have they been sold since, the frames from AC?

Gathering dust in Malta. One was damaged from an incident with a tug. I think both aircraft are actually still owned by Air Canada, just leased to TAM. Could be wrong though.


TAM - PT-MSN - Malta (MLA) by Andrew_Simpson, on Flickr

[Edited 2013-11-23 04:19:03]
First to fly the 787-9
 
DTWPurserBoy
Posts: 2374
Joined: Fri Feb 19, 2010 10:33 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 2:22 pm

Quoting niconet (Reply 22):
What will be the fate of these 5 A345?
I´ve heard AR was interested but I think something failed on negotiations, ans Airbus won´t keep them as a suvenir...

I believe I read that Boeing has agreed to take them in trade. I would assume that they will end up as VVIP aircraft. I have a birthday coming up and one of these would make a great present!
Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
 
infinit
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:08 pm

Quoting parapente (Reply 5):
I think there is the more fundamental question of weather people want to spend 17 hours straight on an airplane. Even in the greatest luxury, the answer seems to be no.

I disagree. This was my dream flight.

Same observation as the poster in Reply 18. For everyone in Singapore I know going to anywhere in the western part of the US, SIN-EWR is the flight people would choose if they could afford it. If they couldn't, it gets mentioned in an if-only-I-could-afford-it hypothesis.

I always prefer direct flights too. Comparing a flight I did SIN-DXB-AMS and AMS-SIN, I greatly preferred the latter. I absolutely hate having to layover. It's terribly exhausting.
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 5:19 pm

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 39):
I believe I read that Boeing has agreed to take them in trade. I would assume that they will end up as VVIP aircraft. I have a birthday coming up and one of these would make a great present!

The SQ A345 are going back to Airbus. This was part of the last SQ A350/A380 purchase deal.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
................Trip fuel....Cost......%..........Cabin L*W m
A345...........143t......143k$...100..........55*5.28
200LR..........127t.....127k$......89..........49*5.87
777-8...........115t.....115k$......81..........55*5.97

A diff of almost 30 tonnes of fuel between the A345 and 777-8 is pretty impressive. But their is still 115 tonnes of fuel to carry, meaning ULH routes will remain very expensive to operate.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
would the extra 0.1m pack one more J seats abrest?
Quoting ferpe (Reply 32):
For the 345 vs 200LR it is a matter how much extra revenue one can make of the extra cabin with, for J can one pack one more seat per row in those 0.6m?

If you keep the same J product, than the answer is likely no and you'll still have around 100 seats. But one can also use smaller seats and going to 6 or even 7 abreast would give you 150 to 175 seats.
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:00 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):
If you keep the same J product, than the answer is likely no and you'll still have around 100 seats. But one can also use smaller seats and going to 6 or even 7 abreast would give you 150 to 175 seats.

It seems J seats are in strong development, comfortable lie flat is a must with something like 1.98m or 6ft 6'' bed lenght. I have looked at two recent products which use mild herringbone, LH new business and Uniteds new 787 business.

It seems LH can bring 6 abrest in a 330/340 cross section (5.28m) with good comfort both in seating, elbow room (mild V) and bed of 1.98m with 57'' pitch or 1.45m of cabin length used.

The United product is an angeld seat, sticking the feet beside the front seat like a herringbone but always on the same side. It has similar data but needs 60'' pitch is seems, 6 abrest in a 5.49m cross section. The seat width is 22'' instead of 20' for the LH seat.

What one can see is that a 150 J seat 778 would be possible and most probable economical, means we might have business equipped direct 18 hour flights coming back, dividing 115k$ on 0.75*150 instead of 143k$ on 0.75*100 makes 1022$ per pax in fuel costs vs 1927$, almost half the cost and if I take the reduced OEW of a 150J seat cabin into the 778 I end up at 970$ fuel cost at 75% load factor.

What I also see is that a 140 seat all J A350-900 is possible. I would loose some 14t in OEW and therefore be able to fly 9200nm nominally, ie a 359 all J class with these kind of seats can also be used on such 18 hour missions  Wow! (it would probably be 17 hours then as it flies 4% faster).

The 777-8X would be more then capable of 18 hours in such a config, it could actually fly 20 hour legs without resorting to cargo bay tanks.

A 787-9 with a reduced cabin of 125J is more marginal, it would loose 10t OEW and have a nominal range of 8700nm and it gets fuel limited at 8500nm vs 9200nm for the 359.

If we then finally configure the 359 and 778 as new SIN-EWR candidates with 140 resp 150J cabins they would burn 91t and 109t, clearly the 359 is more interesting as it's fuel costs would be 865$ vs 970$ per occupied seat with 75% load factor. The reason for this big difference is in their weights, the 359 would be 30t lighter in OEW and would start with TOW 258t vs 313t for the 778. The 778 is laid out for flying those distances with full ship, the 359 not.


   So at the end of a long dive into the costs of such flights comes the conclusion that we could see this flight coming back from 2015 when Singapore gets their A350-900s  praise    .

[Edited 2013-11-23 11:17:57]
Non French in France
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:06 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 38):
Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
Yes, sorry that is what I meant. Are they still in use or have they been sold since, the frames from AC?

Gathering dust in Malta. One was damaged from an incident with a tug. I think both aircraft are actually still owned by Air Canada, just leased to TAM. Could be wrong though.

Fairly sure they're still owned by AC. The 2 A345s were the only A340s owned by AC. All their A343s were leased.
 
MEA-707
Posts: 3843
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 1999 4:51 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:36 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 41):
A345...........143t......143k$...100..........55*5.28

Does this 143t means 143.000 kilogram?
I flew SIN-EWR on 7 november, a lovely flight and didn't feel particularly long because of the nice food and entertainment, with 50 other passengers. This figure means it used about 2800 liter of fuel per person?      
Wow, the special price I found of 2100 euro for CMB-SIN-EWR didn't even cover the cost of the fuel. I understand the problem now with these ultralonghauls....
nobody has ever died from hard work, but why take the risk?
 
User avatar
KarelXWB
Posts: 26968
Joined: Sun Jul 15, 2012 6:13 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 7:51 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 42):
The 777-8X would be more then capable of 18 hours in such a config, it could actually fly 20 hour legs without resorting to cargo bay tanks.

Another possibility is configuring the cabin with a mix of J and Y+ seats. But I don't know if there is Y+ demand on such routes.

Quoting ferpe (Reply 42):
So at the end of a long dive into the costs of such flights comes the conclusion that we could see this flight coming back from 2015 when Singapore gets their A350-900s

Then the proposed A350-900R (we should rename it to LR as R now stands for regional) with a range of 9400nm is not necessary at all, amusing no one would ever put a standard 3-class cabin (F | J | Y) on such routes.

What would be a good use case for the proposed A350-900R(LR)?

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 44):
Does this 143t means 143.000 kilogram?

Correct, 143 tons of fuel.

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 44):
with 50 other passengers

That's a poor load.

Quoting MEA-707 (Reply 44):
Wow, the special price I found of 2100 euro for CMB-SIN-EWR didn't even cover the cost of the fuel. I understand the problem now with these ultralonghauls....

Well yes, if you have a load factor of only 50%.

And such flights also have to carry extra drinks and food, plus a spare crew (pilots, cabin staff) and those salaries must be paid for.

[Edited 2013-11-23 11:58:26]
What we leave behind is not as important as how we've lived.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:31 pm

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 17):
I think you would find the vast majority of travelers (even leisure travelers) would prefer nonstop vs. connecting regardless of stage length.

The vast majority of travelelers prefers cheap flights - and there no A345, 77L, A358 or 778 can compete with a one stop on an A346, A380, A3510, 77W, 779 .
 
tortugamon
Posts: 6795
Joined: Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:14 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:31 pm

Quoting ferpe (Reply 42):

I am surprised to hear the A359 could have the range in the cabin you identify. It seems like SQ is going toward 1-2-1 all aisle access configuration. Even if they go 2-2-2 the A359 is a better choice for SQ because they don't seem to configure their aircraft to take advantage of the added width of the 777 on long haul missions. If they don't think the A359 has the legs or if they do some cargo on this route it will be interesting to see if they go with a small fleet of 778s. I don't think it's likely.

SQ has some 773s that have 2-2-2 first class cabins with 35 inch seats so they could clearly fit a fantastic J product in the777-8x. I think their customers expect 1-2-1 though. Even AA is doing that now. I have to admit preferring 1-2-1 but I have zero problem with LH's new J configuration as well. Just offset seating and they could make a great product. If CX does sonething appealing it could drive changes to these legacy premier carriers. It could get interesting.

tortugamon
 
LY777
Posts: 2587
Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 8:45 pm

I've never understood why SQ didn't use the 77L on these routes as they already owned other variants of 777s.
The 77L would have been more efficient than the A345

[Edited 2013-11-23 12:46:24]
Flown:717,727,732,733,734,735,738,73H,742/744/748,752,753,762/2ER/763/3ER,772/77E/773/77W, 788, 789, DC8,DC10,E190,E195,MD83,MD88, L1011, A3B2,A319,A320-100/200,A321,A332/A333,A343,A388
 
ferpe
Posts: 2667
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2010 7:44 am

RE: Goodbye Singapore Airlines A340!

Sat Nov 23, 2013 9:00 pm

Quoting LY777 (Reply 48):
I've never understood why SQ didn't use the 77L on these routes as they already owned other variants of 777s.
The 77L would have been more efficient than the A345

Read my post 32 and you will understand why this is not the case, the 200LR is 11% more fuel efficient but has a 10% shorter cabin, as you are all business config you need a seating that can use the extra with or you don't gain anything.
Non French in France

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