Quoting warren747sp (Reply 48): Everybody in Asia knows that the main reason SIA is no longer profitable is because they fly the A380. The are not the ME3 and will never be able to compete with them given that it is no on anything near a even footing. Bigger is better will no longer works for SIA ever again.!1

Even by some of the standards set on here... that is low. Despite placing 2 repeat orders for the A380, despite some past reports claiming better costs (per seat?) than the 77W, despite them placing the order based on numbers AIrbus gave to them and then the plane beating those numbers, despite the fact that passengers go out of their way to fly on A380s... it doesn't make money.

Come on, SQ's business model is based on a hub with transfers. Een if it's not at a huge scale, the A380 has been useful for them. It's definitely not the reason SQ are experiencing losses, namely because:

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 49): To my information SIA has been making a profit both in 2013-2014 and 2014-2015.

I don't like making accusations, but your comment is just plainly inaccurate and made up.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): Were does the CEO say that?.

He didn't. It was a supposition on my part!

This is actually a very good article that puts the A380 into context with an airline.

We have SIA saying there is structural change in their market, they have evolved into a multi-brand airline with vastly different business models, they will trend away from some of their traditional markets and that new markets will be predicated by the introduction of new ULH aeroplanes.

On the A380 front, they have stated they may not grow their fleet beyond the current 19 aircraft. They would like performance improvements for their five aircraft to be delivered from 2017 and their current fleet, they are looking at interior upgrades (more seats) to help keep the A380 competitive and are very non-committal about a NEO and its prospects in their fleet.

I deduce from this, smaller planes such as the A350 and 787-10 may be better suited for their markets going forward, capture of passengers in markets where the A380 currently flies may actually reduce over the longer term, SIA's growth prospects are based upon new markets where a fundamentally different aeroplane to the A380 is required.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): All in all our weekly A380 bash fest starting of with a wild interpretation of an interview.

I know the thread starter was a little on the provocative side, but there is a fair amount of information in this article that puts the aircraft in an airline fleet into context.

This is valuable if we are going to come to a more complete understanding of the aircraft.

[Edited 2015-07-15 15:41:10]

Quoting travelhound (Reply 51): On the A380 front, they have stated they may not grow their fleet beyond the current 19 aircraft.

One needs to be real inventive to read that out of: “Our experience with the A380 is generally good, but we would like it to be better. We have five more A380s coming from 2017 onwards, and plan to make the aircraft configurations and so forth even more efficient, which would be a great help to us.”

Never let facts come in the way of a good A380 bash fest.

Mr Phong wants better fuel burn on his A380's. He seem frustrated and wants more attention to this by Airbus and RR. If he doesn't get it he's thinking of pairing back the fleet when the leases come up... but that would be painful because the passengers really like the A380.

Translation- Will someone from Airbus please help us compete better with the ME3's by improving fuel burn? He's sending up a "help me" rocket. That's all. (I wonder why he doesn't just pick up the phone? I'm sure he has several points of contact to call.)

Quoting Airzim

I think you need to read more into these statements, not less.

CEOs, as a general rule, are cheerleaders and very rarely give anything less than unadulterated praise for the products, services, etc., that constitutes their company. You never want to publically make statements that sound like you or your company made the wrong decision on something. A statement like "generally good" is a very negative endorsement in executive speak.

I guess the real question is given hindsight, would they still have ordered the aircraft? "Generally good" to me sound like the A380 might not make the cut.

Exactly! Well stated!

Especially coming form Singapore! AB fans may put their head in the sand but anybody who know Sing culture and corporate speak understands what is being said.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 52): Quoting travelhound (Reply 51): On the A380 front, they have stated they may not grow their fleet beyond the current 19 aircraft. One needs to be real inventive to read that out of: “Our experience with the A380 is generally good, but we would like it to be better. We have five more A380s coming from 2017 onwards, and plan to make the aircraft configurations and so forth even more efficient, which would be a great help to us.”

Yet you don't have to be inventive to read it out of "Whatever it is, we still have this fleet of 19. These first five new A380s, which are on lease, could actually be released if we choose to. We will make a decision later on about extending them or when to release them" - it's the exact quote!

Quoting PanAm1971 (Reply 53): Translation- Will someone from Airbus please help us compete better with the ME3's by improving fuel burn? He's sending up a "help me" rocket. That's all. (I wonder why he doesn't just pick up the phone? I'm sure he has several points of contact to call.)

The ME3 also fly the A380 and would presumably also benefit from improving fuel burn. -ir

Ah yes, i should have known when i saw the title-the usual A vs B arguments. Allow me to bring some objective facts and logic to the conversation. The A380 simply cant cut it for the most part in todays aviation market for the most part

For those who think it's more of a capacity issue, in my personal experience flying SQs 380s to NRT and SYD primarily, they are often near-filled in all three cabins. On my last NRT flight on SQ12 in May, the Suites had only one empty seat out of 12. SQ only allows one mileage redemption in that cabin (which was me) so the other 10 must be cash-paying!

SQ isn't growing much but they haven't shrunk either. They would probably still benefit from using the 380 on their denser routes

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 54): Especially coming form Singapore! AB fans may put their head in the sand but anybody who know Sing culture and corporate speak understands what is being said.

Singaporeans generally arent't so indirect.. that's probably more Japanese. We are more 'Western' in that sense. When he said its generally good but they want better it to be more fuel effecient, that's probably what he meant!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 55): Yet you don't have to be inventive to read it out of "Whatever it is, we still have this fleet of 19. These first five new A380s, which are on lease, could actually be released if we choose to. We will make a decision later on about extending them or when to release them" - it's the exact quote!

Yes and how long does SIA usually keeps its frames? And what was the question he answered? It was always assumed that the new frames were replacements for frames ending their leasing time.

[Edited 2015-07-15 17:36:15]

There was an interview with the SIA CEO in the Straits Times a few weeks ago focusing on coming arrival of the A350:

In summary:
* the current long haul fleet (A380 as well as 77W and the few 77Es) is not efficient enough and is not able to open up new routes
* The A350 is a "game changer" (his words) in terms of efficiency
* The A350 enables opening of new routes and will be used for that
* There is no aircraft on the market today which can do SIN-US non-stop profitably but they are actively working with both Airbus and Boeing to get a profitable solution

So they don't think the A380 is efficient enough but neither is the 77W - and they have both on order (5 x A380 and 3 x 77W to be delivered) because short term there is nothing better available.

Quoting warren747sp (Reply 48): Everybody in Asia knows that the main reason SIA is no longer profitable is because they fly the A380. The are not the ME3 and will never be able to compete with them given that it is no on anything near a even footing. Bigger is better will no longer works for SIA ever again.!1

Although SIA had loss making quarters in their history, the have been profitable every year of their existence and are still making profits annually. Profit for April 2014 - March 2015 was SGD$368 Million. So how "Everybody in Asia knows that the main reason SIA is no longer profitable is because they fly the A380" is beyond me.

I re read the article, and what I take away from it is perhaps the A380s will be replaced by 2 A350 flights, maybe not to the same city, but opening new markets. LHR may keep A380 service, but other cities SQ serves may see increased frequency on smaller Airbus planes. Perhaps not as glamorous, but it might be a more sustainable business proposition.

Either way, Airbus is taking in a lot of Singapore dollars.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): The only other thing I can read out of that interview is that he would like the neo.

Where does the ceo say that?

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 62): Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): The only other thing I can read out of that interview is that he would like the neo. Where does the ceo say that?

Yeah, where did he say that? My take away from the article, based on direct CEO quotes is: "The 777-300ER is a great aircraft at this point of time"; and "Our experience with the A380 is generally good, but we would like it to be better." Anything else is reading between the lines, which some members suggest we're no longer allowed to do. -ir

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 59): Yes and how long does SIA usually keeps its frames? And what was the question he answered? It was always assumed that the new frames were replacements for frames ending their leasing time.

The point is that the quote is accurate. He is holding out the possibility that the five leased frames may be renewed, or they may be dropped. This may simply be posturing or it may not. It still doesn't change the fact that the quote is accurate.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 60): the current long haul fleet (A380 as well as 77W and the few 77Es) is not efficient enough and is not able to open up new routes

I think it's more than a few 777E as well as 777A (original 777-200). If Wiki is right, the total is 25, and there's seven 777-300-not-ERs as well. A350 will be a great replacement for them all.

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_fleet#Current_fleet

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 60): The A350 is a "game changer" (his words) in terms of efficiency

The A350 is a wonderful aircraft.

Can anyone really say, hand on heart, that there exists any route, on any airline for which the A380 is uniquely and ideally specified? In such a way that the route would not be equally (or better) served by the 77W - or 77X? I can't.

But here's the thing. For both EK and SQ, the A380 facilitates their niches as providers of a romantic, luxury travel experience. This is, and always had been an important part of their business models and the A380 is currently unique in its ability to provide it.

History will probably not judge the A380 as one of the all time great aircraft. It is evolutionary at a time when things should be revolutionary, ugly to look at and let's be honest - has significantly undersold. But as an aircraft enthusiast I am wholly grateful for its existence. What a dull place commercial aviation would be without it.

[Edited 2015-07-15 18:50:17]

Quoting travelhound (Thread starter): 1) The A380 in the SIA fleet might not be the most ideal aircraft.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 2): I think you are putting words in his mouth here. At no point did he say that, in fact he said the exact opposite: "Our experience with the A380 is generally good".

That may not be what he said, but in corporate news speak, that is probably what he meant. You can never really criticize an aircraft in your fleet because that leads to the question of why it was ordered in the first place. The time to publicly criticize is when trying to lay blame for underperformance or some other problem or when negotiating.

Airbus made a bad bet back in the late 1990s when airports all over the world were approaching capacity. Traffic has never regained that level and only LHR and FRA are starting to approach maximum capacity. PEK is getting there but not many other places are. Sure, there are other slot restricted airports but many of them have slots used by relatively small aircraft. If air travel really takes off again, then the A380's day may come but for now, smaller direct flights are winning out, although I hate flying in the 787. The seats are smaller than in an A320.

Quoting travelhound (Thread starter): In another Flightglobal article SIA's CEO casts doubt about the A380 in its fleet stating it "would like it to be better".

Airbus is already doing to the A380 what it did to the A300, incremental improvements that over time add up to significant improvement as a whole.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): All in all our weekly A380 bash fest starting of with a wild interpretation of an interview.

Did you mean daily?

Quoting gasman (Reply 65): Can anyone really say, hand on heart, that there exists any route, on any airline for which the A380 is uniquely and ideally specified? In such a way that the route would not be equally (or better) served by the 77W - or 77X? I can't.

DXB-MAN, LHR-LAX, MEL-AKL, SYD-AKL, SIN-LHR, SIN-HKG, SIN-SYD, SIN-FRA ++++++

Quoting gasman (Reply 65): Can anyone really say, hand on heart, that there exists any route, on any airline for which the A380 is uniquely and ideally specified? In such a way that the route would not be equally (or better) served by the 77W - or 77X? I can't.

SIN-LHR, SIN-FRA, SIN-CDG, DXB-LHR (in fact DXB to any major world city, that's over 50), LHR-LAX, LHR-HKG, SYD-DFW, SYD-LAX, SYD-DXB, CDG-LAX, FRA-LAX, KUL-LHR, BKK-LHR, ICN-LAX, MEL-LAX. And many more.

A lot of those routes are long which suits the A380's very long range and its comfort, since they're very long flights frequency is less important (i.e. BA on LHR-SIN and LHR-HKG leave within 2 hours of each other both ways) but there is still a demand for capacity. You can use a 777 on them, but you lose capacity in many places where frequency is not an option (LHR) and you either lose comfort or economics, which you'd rather not on a 15hr flight.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 62): Where does the ceo say that?

So now we require direct quotes from the CEO?
A-net .....

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 63): Yeah, where did he say that?

Quite possibly right about here

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 63): "Our experience with the A380 is generally good, but we would like it to be better."

reading between the lines, that is..

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 63): Anything else is reading between the lines, which some members suggest we're no longer allowed to do

And other members insist is a legitimate thing to do, until such time as it suits them......

FWIW, I've never seen anyone suggest we're no longer allowed to read between the lines. If you could point me to that I'd be interested

Rgds

Quoting astuteman (Reply 70): FWIW, I've never seen anyone suggest we're no longer allowed to read between the lines. If you could point me to that I'd be interested

It's the sense I get from reading between the lines of various comments in this thread. See, for example, replies 28, 47, 51, 52. Regards. -ir

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64): He is holding out the possibility that the five leased frames may be renewed, or they may be dropped.

Yes but given SAs history of replacing aircraft at a relatively young age, the possible change to the status quo that he is "holding out" is that he might increase the fleet, not decrease it.

i.e. if Airbus can eek out some more efficiency and make that retrofittable to his existing frames, he might decide to keep the old frames as well as the new ones, rather than replace them per the current plan.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 70): FWIW, I've never seen anyone suggest we're no longer allowed to read between the lines. If you could point me to that I'd be interested

Sorry - there is no direct quote to point you to. You need to read between the lines.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 70): reading between the lines, that is..

ah, the interpretation game. Lets balance this thread out a little.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 19): “The 777-300ER is a great aircraft at this point of time,” he says. “The 777X is not looking at delivery until early 2020-2021, which is still some way off. But for now the 777-300ER is great equipment for us to do long-haul.”

"SIA CEO sys 77W is past its prime". Obviously the 77W is outmatched by newer offerings, but due to backlog those better planes are not available, hence at this time it is great equipment. The A359 is a game changer (not hat much smaller than SQs 9-Abreast layout 777) , which means it blows the 77Ws operating economics out of the water and beats the 787. It apparently isn´t good enough to qualify as game changer.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43): Improved cabin configurations with different densities could make them like their A380s more, no doubt. But it seems pretty clear to me he is talking about his views on the plane a whole.

yup, he basically says that 1-3% fuel burn improvement and some changes to the configuration will keep the A380 competitive. He can only mean vs. the 77X, since that is the only new model coming up, and those 5 deliveries basically run right into competing with the 77X.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 60): * There is no aircraft on the market today which can do SIN-US non-stop profitably but they are actively working with both Airbus and Boeing to get a profitable solution

"SIA CEO deems 778x a failure.", maybe i should open a thread like that, since for me that is the most interesting information in the interview.
With the 778 already being in the market, and per CEO´s statement no aircraft being in the market that can fly ULH economically, he made it very clear that the 778x is not an economic airframe. Must be the first time a prime airline CEO calls a new aircraft uneconomical 6 years prior to EIS. I guess the 778x is only good for max payload (cargo) long haul operations, but not so much for ULH.
So, either Boeing can give the 779x enough legs to make it on ULH routes or Airbus launches the A359LR.

And, well, with the 3% fuel burn advantage and aggressive weight reduction the A380 can probably also fly SIN-EWR and for sure SIN-LAX easy enough. Read: if Airbus improves the A380 enough, we keep the 5 oldest frames and send the new ones fly ULH. That also means that the SIA CEO considers even the oldest build A380 still competitive in the 2020+ market with only a reasonable fuel burn reduction via PIP.

CEO´s generally are very well with comments that can´t be nailed to exactly one meaning, but none the less, his views of the 778x and 787 are the only real news.

best regards
Thomas

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 62): Where does the ceo say that?

He talks about what he expects from the neo. The noncommittal is from the journalist, not a quote from the CEO.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43): How so? Do you think all 787-10s will be operated by Scoot?

Quite possibly.  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 43): It seems like a lot of planes for this relatively new airline.

To me, ostensibly, Scoot is expanding at an "OK" pace and will only have 15 B787's in its fleet. I could see a fleet of 25 B787's eventually.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73): and beats the 787.

Really?

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73): It apparently isn´t good enough to qualify as game changer.

Who says?

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73): his views of the 778x and 787 are the only real news.

Where does he state it in the article?   

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 75): Really?

obviously, with the 787 offloaded to Scoot and the A350 being a game changer it is quite clear wich frame SIA considers superior.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 75): Where does he state it in the article?

The 778x not being economical is pretty much a direct quote. No economical ULH plane on the market, the 77L and 778X being the only frames one the market, hence both are uneconomical.
They have 787s, but they chose to fly A330/777/A380 themselves instead. With SIAs higher comfort standards, 9-abreast 787 is out of the question, the 787 just doesn't pan out in their fleet. Apparently 10-abreast A380, 9-abreast 777s and 8-abreast A330 make more money than 8-abreast 787s, but is superior to them 9-abreast config. Otherwise scoot would fly the "old" planes and SQ the 787.
He couldn't call the A350 a game changer, if it doesn't have noticeable superior economics to the 787, since in that case the game had already changed.

Best regards
Thomas

Quoting speedbored (Reply 72): Sorry - there is no direct quote to point you to. You need to read between the lines

...or you can break down the sentence!

Quote: “Our experience with the A380 is generally good, but we would like it to be better. We have five more A380s coming from 2017 onwards, and plan to make the aircraft configurations and so forth even more efficient, which would be a great help to us.”

"...the A380 is generally good..." = A380 is fairly middling (7.5/10)

"...but we would like it better..." = SIA want a more efficient aircraft

"... aircraft configurations and so forth even more efficient..." = SIA are investing in new interior configuration too make A380 more efficient

"...which would be a great help to us..." = SIA invests in A380 to make it more efficient, which will be a GREAT HELP.

The questions becomes, why does the current form of the A380 need GREAT HELP when its current competition is limited to aircraft like the 777-300ER?

As such we have a thread title "SIA CEO Somewhat Less Positive About A380".

[Edited 2015-07-16 03:01:40]

Quoting travelhound (Reply 77): The questions becomes, why does the current form of the A380 need great help when its current competition is limited to aircraft like the 777-300ER?

Well, we already know from SIAs past comments that the A380 is better than the 77W if you fly it with reasonable loads, so the "huge help" can only apply to the 779x. They are probably also worried that, with a higher fuel burn/seat on the A380 vs. the A359/781 it would lose some of its advantage if fuel prices rise, hence the pressure for a PIP. But since they seem to toy with keeping the 5 oldest A380 around, they obviously feel those are still competitive in a world full of 787, A350, 77W and, depending on how much longer they´d keep them, even against the 77X. And that even with 100 highly advanced WB aircraft on order and those offering enough excess over the current fleet that they could probably retire all A380 w/o capacity loss and frequency increase, they are committed to the type.

It needs quite the imagination to spin this interview into the negative for the A380.

best regards
Thomas

I'm guessing you're being sarcastic, but in the off-chance you are not.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73): "SIA CEO deems 778x a failure.", maybe i should open a thread like that, since for me that is the most interesting information in the interview. With the 778 already being in the market, and per CEO´s statement no aircraft being in the market that can fly ULH economically, he made it very clear that the 778x is not an economic airframe.

  

The CEO of SQ stated "The 777X is not looking at delivery until early 2020-2021.", so in his own words, as well as the bounds of common sense, the CEO of SQ does not consider the 777-8 to be currently on the market and therefore it would not be out of the running for an SQ ULR order.

Either that, or he has also dismissed not just Leeham.net's A350-900LR, but Airbus' own A350-900LR announced back in 2006, which is even better than Leeham.net's A350-900LR, as being uneconomical.

Maybe that is why he said "Airbus and Boeing are both looking at new ULR offerings" as he feels the 777-8 and A350-900LR are both inefficient frames and not able to meet SQ's requirements. So both Airbus and Boeing are developing all new ULH platforms especially for SQ - an "SQ Special", you might say.  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79): Maybe that is why he said "Airbus and Boeing are both looking at new ULR offerings" as he feels the 777-8 and A350-900LR are both inefficient frames and not able to meet SQ's requirements.

If this is the case it makes we wonder what requirements SQ specifically may have for new ULR-offerings and how they can be realised by either Airbus or Boeing. Regardless which airplane they might be working on in the Toulouse or Seattle area.  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79): The CEO of SQ stated "The 777X is not looking at delivery until early 2020-2021.", so in his own words, as well as the bounds of common sense, the CEO of SQ does not consider the 777-8 to be currently on the market and therefore it would not be out of the running for an SQ ULR order.

Without the 778x being considered as "on the market", he would have said "we looked at the 77L and it isn´t economical", makes no sense to talk about "in the market" if you are in fact just talking about one model that is. By your definition hardly any modern frame really is on the market considering the OEM backlogs.
There would also not be much do discuss with Boeing about the 778x, since its economics are fairly fixed by now. If he talks to Airbus and Boeing about frames capable of serving ULH economically, he can only refer to aircraft not currently on offer: A359LR, 779ERX and, to a lesser extend, an A380PIP or neo.

best regardss
Thomas

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 76): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 75): Really? obviously, with the 787 offloaded to Scoot and the A350 being a game changer it is quite clear wich frame SIA considers superior.

Nothing even remotely close to "obvious" as you incorrectly put it.

If the A350XWB is so much superior than the B787 then why did the SIA group order FIFTY of them..regardless if they fly for Scoot or possibly (and currently on order) mainline SQ.

I guess they have too much money on their hands.   

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 76): They have 787s, but they chose to fly A330/777/A380 themselves instead. With SIAs higher comfort standards,

1)The B787 wasn't available (to use in the fleet) when SQ got their B777's, A330's and A380's.
2)The B777's and A380s have completely different mission profiles than the B787's.
3)The B787 is wider than the A330. 8-across on the B787 will be more "comfortable" than 8-across on an A330.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 76): He couldn't call the A350 a game changer, if it doesn't have noticeable superior economics to the 787, since in that case the game had already changed.

Huh?   

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 76): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 75): Where does he state it in the article? The 778x not being economical is pretty much a direct quote

Where? There is no "pretty much". Either he stated it or he didn't.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 76): he 77L and 778X being the only frames one the market, hence both are uneconomical.

He never mentioned that either. You are simply making things up now based on your false assumptions.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 79): The CEO of SQ stated "The 777X is not looking at delivery until early 2020-2021.", so in his own words, as well as the bounds of common sense, the CEO of SQ does not consider the 777-8 to be currently on the market and therefore it would not be out of the running for an SQ ULR order. Either that, or he has also dismissed not just Leeham.net's A350-900LR, but Airbus' own A350-900LR announced back in 2006, which is even better than Leeham.net's A350-900LR, as being uneconomical.

  

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 47): The advance he is expecting for his 5 new A380 coming in 2017 seems to be exactly what Airbus and RR is also promising Emirates. The only other thing I can read out of that interview is that he would like the neo.

This is what I read into it too. SQ ordered their most recent 5 well before EK switched to RR. Airbus / RR have promised some enhancements to EK (my assumption, not yet published) which SQ wants on their 5 yet to be delivered. This may well already be agreed between the parties.

Another quote from the same article:

"SIA would prefer any fuel-saving tweaks for the five new aircraft to be applicable for its existing 19 A380s. Goh hints that SIA could pare back its A380 fleet if the retrofit does not take place."

This means SQ may keep all of thier first 19, making an operational fleet of 24 total when the final 5 arrive. Retrofitting improvements to earlier models is an integral aim of RR design philosophy, so I expect as much as is feasible will be offered.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 70): So now we require direct quotes from the CEO?

Those were the posters exact words up thread trying to keep another poster to that high standard and was meant to show the double standard involved. It is getting ridiculous.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73): "SIA CEO sys 77W is past its prime"

I agree it is. The 788, 789, and A359 would all have better fuel burns - unfortunately none of them can carry enough people or cargo and none of them are available in viable numbers to replace them if the airlines even wanted to downsize so I guess that makes it the best aircraft for right now.

The A351 entering the market isn't going to change things over night either. What do we think there will be 25 of them in service in three years? There will be ~800 77Ws. Things don't change overnight.

Quoting tommy1808 (Reply 73): With the 778 already being in the market, and per CEO´s statement no aircraft being in the market that can fly ULH economically, he made it very clear that the 778x is not an economic airframe.

I agree with Stitch's interpretation. The CEO is looking for an ULH plane and what is currently available in the market place (existing aircraft in my interpretation) doesn't do it for him. Makes sense as he moved on from the A345 and the 77L is available but its the same generation aircraft so shouldn't change things dramatically.

Quite the contrary the CEO seems to say (to me) that he is interested in the 777X but its not available until 2020/2021. A timeline that may even be longer than a hypothetical A359LR.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 75): To me, ostensibly, Scoot is expanding at an "OK" pace and will only have 15 B787's in its fleet. I could see a fleet of 25 B787's eventually.

Ok, I will give you the 25 but they have 20 788s and 789s coming so that leaves only 5 787-10s but SQ has 30 of them coming and I think that probably is too many aircraft for them to have so quickly. I think SQ will have to take some.

tortugamon

The discussion is now getting silly, with members deliberately misreading between the lines. The CEO flat out called the 777 'great' (twice, in fact), and then stated SQ's experience with the A380 was 'generally good' (not uniformly good, just generally).

In mathematical terms: generally good < good;

Furthermore: good < great;

Therefore, by transitivity: generally good < great;

Substituing actual values: SQ's A380 positivity < SQ's 777 positivity;

Thus: the OP's assertion (and thread title) "SIA CEO Somewhat Less Positive About 380" is mathematically sound.

QED. -professor ir

[Edited 2015-07-16 09:46:09]

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84): Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 75): To me, ostensibly, Scoot is expanding at an "OK" pace and will only have 15 B787's in its fleet. I could see a fleet of 25 B787's eventually. Ok, I will give you the 25 but they have 20 788s and 789s coming so that leaves only 5 787-10s but SQ has 30 of them coming and I think that probably is too many aircraft for them to have so quickly. I think SQ will have to take some.

Using Wikipedia, Scoot will have 20 B787's (10/10 B788/B789) and 30 B787-10 going to mainline SQ. Obviously with commonality with the B788/B789 and some "trunk routes", I can see 5-10 going to Scoot and 20-25 of the B787-10's going with mainline.

I guess you are right, 50 B787's for Scoot might be too much.  

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 85): The discussion is now getting silly, with members deliberately misreading between the lines.

Points being made and missed all over, aren't there  

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 84): It is getting ridiculous.

It's making my head spin, T-Man.
I'm pretty sure in amongst almost everyone jumping ship from one principle to another seemingly almost at random I've lost the plot somewhere.

I suspect though if I stick to "most of us will cherry pick the bits of data that suit our argument, wherever they come from" I'll find the plot again pretty soon  

I've long since given up the search for some consistency

Peace, by the way. None of this meant to be a dig at you

Rgds

[Edited 2015-07-16 11:21:23]

Another CEO weighs in on the A380.  

"Q: Passengers rave about the A380 but your sales have dropped off. Why?

A: It was always clear that there would only be a very limited number of airlines who were customers or potential customers of the 380. You have some who are more risk-averse than others. If you want to maximize the possibility of filling your aircraft you will tend more toward smaller aircraft. (Emirates President) Tim Clark has said numerous times the 380 is a money-making machine for him because he manages to fill it. If you manage to fill a 380, let's say 80 percent or more, it is a money-making machine. If you are flying at only 50 percent passenger load, you have a big problem. "

Quoting mffoda (Reply 88): Another CEO weighs in on the A380.

Oh, what would Enders know anyway?

On a more serious note, his willingness to suggest "80 percent or more" as an example of the break even load factor is interesting. Has anyone high up at Airbus ever presented that specific number publicly before? -ir

Edited to add: Link to today's interview with Enders: http://www.seattletimes.com/business...-talks-about-emissions-innovation/

[Edited 2015-07-16 12:34:02]

Quoting JerseyFlyer (Reply 83): This means SQ may keep all of thier first 19, making an operational fleet of 24 total when the final 5 arrive.

I read this to mean that they may keep their leases longer so they may have a fleet of 24 -or- they will keep their existing fleet of 19 just with 5 replacements. I accept that I could have read it wrong. I read this to mean that if they improvements are retrofitable they will extend leases which I am sure will interest more than one party.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 86): 50 B787's for Scoot might be too much.

We are in agreement.

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 85): The discussion is now getting silly

Agreed. I think the point of order was needed and personally, I agree with your argument.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 87): I suspect though if I stick to "most of us will cherry pick the bits of data that suit our argument, wherever they come from" I'll find the plot again pretty soon

To be honest I think this particular vain of anal retentiveness goes back to the A380neo thread where wording and 'messaging'   was critically analyzed for better or worse. There was an honest debate but its been a carried away in my opinion. If I'm fair I am not doing anything to stop it but then again with a-net its not something that can be easily controlled. Of course no hard feelings bud.

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 89): On a more serious note, his willingness to suggest "80 percent or more" as an example of the break even load factor is interesting.

To be fair I don't think he is saying that you lose money at less than 80% (which would make your 'break even' wording accurate) but rather it turns into a 'money-making machine'. I take that to mean it makes you bucket loads of cash and he chose 80% probably bc that is a common load factor for airlines. I would not look into that comment other than to say what I think most of us know, if you can fill the A380 it will make you a lot of money and could very well be the most profitable aircraft in your fleet.

tortugamon

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 90): To be fair I don't think he is saying that you lose money at less than 80% (which would make your 'break even' wording accurate) but rather it turns into a 'money-making machine'. I take that to mean it makes you bucket loads of cash and he chose 80% probably bc that is a common load factor for airlines. I would not look into that comment other than to say what I think most of us know, if you can fill the A380 it will make you a lot of money and could very well be the most profitable aircraft in your fleet.

Yes, that's what I figured. I just wondered if the 80% figure had been mentioned by Airbus before.

The other part of Ender's quote that I found refreshingly forthcoming was: "It was always clear that there would only be a very limited number of airlines who were customers or potential customers of the 380."

I've certainly heard this sentiment expressed over the years by many parties, but don't recall hearing it directly from top Airbus management. -ir

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 89): On a more serious note, his willingness to suggest "80 percent or more" as an example of the break even load factor is interesting. Has anyone high up at Airbus ever presented that specific number publicly before?

Break-even load factor for an A380 in most customer's configurations (475-525 seats) should be around 60%.

Korean Airlines might need 80% because they only put 400 seats in, but since it's 25% premium cabin, they sell that out and it's probably making money on the trip.  

Quoting Stitch (Reply 92): Break-even load factor for an A380 in most customer's configurations (475-525 seats) should be around 60%.

I am not a big fan of these break even numbers. For years QF were flying their A380 heavy metal with load factors above the company's average 75% and still its international operations remained unprofitable.

There would be many factors in determining break even, load factor would be just one of them.

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 91): The other part of Ender's quote that I found refreshingly forthcoming was: "It was always clear that there would only be a very limited number of airlines who were customers or potential customers of the 380."

Enders doesn't share the A380 development experience with his colleagues, which probably causes less cognitive dissonance re A380 reality and hopes than for his colleagues. I was very encouraged by his support for disruptive tech - we've heard nothing like that from Boeing for a decade. He had to backpedal right away re "betting the company" but this guy sounds more like a visionary than some (McNerney).

Quoting travelhound (Reply 93): I am not a big fan of these break even numbers. For years QF were flying their A380 heavy metal with load factors above the company's average 75% and still its international operations remained unprofitable.

They are back in profit and the A380 is still an integral part of their overseas operations.

We don't know why they were unprofitable.

You could have, for example, two airlines. One only flying Boeing and making a profit and one losing money and only flying Airbus. You could then swap the profitable one to only flying Airbus and the other vice versa. The profitable one would still be profitable. There is much more to being profitable than buying a good plane.

[Edited 2015-07-16 21:24:19]

Quoting travelhound (Reply 93): I am not a big fan of these break even numbers. For years QF were flying their A380 heavy metal with load factors above the company's average 75% and still its international operations remained unprofitable.

I think you're right to point out that B/E numbers will vary with the overall efficiency of the airline operating the aircraft.
But I think you're turning it into a bit of a stretch to link 75% L/F's on 12 x A380's with QF's OVERALL experience in long-haul
That doesn't really tell us anything about QF's A380's

Quoting matt6461 (Reply 94): Enders doesn't share the A380 development experience with his colleagues, which probably causes less cognitive dissonance re A380 reality and hopes than for his colleagues. I was very encouraged by his support for disruptive tech - we've heard nothing like that from Boeing for a decade. He had to backpedal right away re "betting the company" but this guy sounds more like a visionary than some

He comes across to me as a pretty disciplined CEO with a lot of respect from his business.
Military training in action I guess..
He invariably seems to talk sensibly, as far as I can see.
A complete counterpoint to Leahy, in many ways

Rgds

Quoting ricknroll (Reply 95): We don't know why they were unprofitable.

Quoting astuteman (Reply 96): That doesn't really tell us anything about QF's A380's

As with Air France there were probably more pressing issues behind QANTAS's woes!

You only have to look at last years end of financial year write down of assets to understand the airline was bloated with over valued, previous generation aircraft assets on its books.

My point is, in general terms I don't think we can use L/F as an indicator of profitability. I'd suggest, for QANTAS they have to fly passengers (at minimal charge) from all over the country to fill up their A380's! As such they probably need a higher L/F to cover the costs of doing so. For airlines like EK they just fly people through their hub, with the passenger more than willing to pay the price for doing so!

Quoting travelhound (Reply 93): I am not a big fan of these break even numbers. For years QF were flying their A380 heavy metal with load factors above the company's average 75% and still its international operations remained unprofitable.

Well we know during the GFC that Business Class traffic on QF's A380 routes fell rather hard, so I could see if the plane went out full in Economy and mostly empty in First Class and Business Class it would hit a 75% load factor, but still either lose money or barely break-even. Hence QF reconfiguring the planes to reduce Business Class by 14% and increase Economy by 12% to better match their actual traffic patterns.

Quoting travelhound (Reply 93): I am not a big fan of these break even numbers. For years QF were flying their A380 heavy metal with load factors above the company's average 75% and still its international operations remained unprofitable.

It could be the flights were profitable but for whatever reason, the (international) system/operations weren't profitable.