Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AngleofAttack
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:15 pm

How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:23 pm

Always wondered this.
If in fact, the a345 was less efficient than the 77L, how come SQ never utilized the latter on their SIN - EWR flight?
Especially considering the flights on the a345 were launched in 2004 (around the time the twin jets beat the quad) and continued operating until 2013, before SQ relaunched that route in 2018 with the a350-900ULR?
Why didn't SQ shift to 77L after 2004?
Last edited by AngleofAttack on Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2535
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:26 pm

I don't believe SQ every operated the 77L at all.

They only operated the 77E, 773 and 77W
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
AngleofAttack
Topic Author
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2016 3:15 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:31 pm

[url][/url]
Antarius wrote:
I don't believe SQ every operated the 77L at all.

They only operated the 77E, 773 and 77W


I'm aware of that, but wouldn't such a high profile route necessitate SQ getting the best equipment for the job? Or where they committed to a345 for some contractual/political reasons? I know the a345 was a very comfortable/quiet aircraft so maybe that played a factor?

btw full disclosure I'm a big fan of the a345
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10738
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:34 pm

AngleofAttack wrote:
[url][/url]
Antarius wrote:
I don't believe SQ every operated the 77L at all.

They only operated the 77E, 773 and 77W


I'm aware of that, but wouldn't such a high profile route necessitate SQ getting the best equipment for the job? Or where they committed to a345 for some contractual/political reasons? I know the a345 was a very comfortable/quiet aircraft so maybe that played a factor?

btw full disclousure I'm a big fan of the a345

The high price of the 77L (which, remember was competing with the extremely popular 77W for slots) and the low secondhand value of the A345 (meaning SQ would get next to nothing selling them) made SQ decide it wasn’t worth ditching the A345s for 77Ls.

The A345 was available before the 77L, and projected to be better than it turned out (vice versa for 77L/77W) which is why SQ initially selected the plane.
 
Antarius
Posts: 2535
Joined: Thu Apr 13, 2017 1:27 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:36 pm

AngleofAttack wrote:
[url][/url]
Antarius wrote:
I don't believe SQ every operated the 77L at all.

They only operated the 77E, 773 and 77W


I'm aware of that, but wouldn't such a high profile route necessitate SQ getting the best equipment for the job? Or where they committed to a345 for some contractual/political reasons? I know the a345 was a very comfortable/quiet aircraft so maybe that played a factor?

btw full disclosure I'm a big fan of the a345



Purchase price is also a factor. The 77L entered service in 2006, while SQ was already operating the a345 in 2003. Dumping the a345 3 years later for another niche aircraft is an expensive proposition, and one that the efficiency of a twin wouldn't be able to make up.
2020: SFO DFW IAH HOU CLT MEX BIS MIA GUA ORD DTW LGA BOS LHR DUB BFS BHD STN OAK PHL ISP JFK SJC DEN SJU LAS TXL GDL
 
evanb
Posts: 918
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:26 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:38 pm

B77L entered service in 2006, several years after the A345. Basically, the A345 beat the B77L to market. When SQ decided to quite the non-stop SIN-EWR they obviously determined that the B77L's efficiencies compared to the A345 were not sufficient. They likely had a lot of good data on the revenue and yield side to make that determination. The A359 ULR obviously generates substantially more cost savings. Also, the A359 ULR presents far less risk for SQ since if they had to end the non-stop services the aircraft could be easily integrated into the larger A359 fleet. The A345 and B77L both had idiosyncrasies which wouldn't make them as compatible with a shorter route network.

I doubt there was any political or contractual reason as SQ have consistently supported both Airbus and Boeing products.
 
andrew1996
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2020 6:41 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:38 pm

I do wonder if they had the 77L if there would have been more direct nonstop to the West Coast sooner like SFO and LAX or even SEA since that was too far for the 77w without restriction pre a359 (even though lax was also an a345 route)
 
DMPHL
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:33 pm

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 5:54 pm

andrew1996 wrote:
I do wonder if they had the 77L if there would have been more direct nonstop to the West Coast sooner like SFO and LAX or even SEA since that was too far for the 77w without restriction pre a359 (even though lax was also an a345 route)


Don't know if the 77L would have opened up SFO, but SQ already operated LAX non-stop with the A345, and closed the route around the same time they closed EWR.
 
User avatar
res77W
Posts: 328
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:59 am

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 6:32 pm

Did ETOPS restrictions play a part in this as well? ETOPS 330 wasn't available until recently?

-Rowen
 
VSMUT
Posts: 4591
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 11:40 am

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Tue Sep 15, 2020 8:33 pm

res77W wrote:
Did ETOPS restrictions play a part in this as well? ETOPS 330 wasn't available until recently?

-Rowen


I can't imagine it was an issue on that route. Other parts of the routing see regular service by other 777s. If I'm not mistaken, it went up to Japan, then followed roughly the same track any other transpacific twin would follow, so up around Anchorage and down through North America. Various other airlines have used everything from 777s to A330s and 767s on the overwater part of the flight.
 
tmu101
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2014 4:04 am

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:42 am

Antarius wrote:

btw full disclosure I'm a big fan of the a345


TOTALLY agree - one of the prettiest planes; perfectly proportioned with those beautiful engines. :cloudnine:
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:04 am

AngleofAttack wrote:
[url][/url]
Antarius wrote:

btw full disclosure I'm a big fan of the a345


Me too but I've never flown on one. As a hobbiest I did fly Premium Economy on the A359 EWR-SIN-EWR in Dec 2018. In Dec 2018 Flight Aware was still occasionally showing the A345 (erroneously) comingled with the A359 on their list of flights on the route. The registrations for the two types are the same so somehow the system was throwing the A345 in there. Check this link, specifically scrolling to the bottom of the page where I have a screenshot of a couple weeks' worth of flights around my flight time. There are a couple A345s in there LOL. http://www.aeromoe.com/flightlog/flt681.html
Last edited by aeromoe on Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FI FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K
 
User avatar
aeromoe
Posts: 1322
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:34 am

Re: How come SQ never operated the 77L on SIN - EWR?

Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:05 am

tmu101 wrote:
Antarius wrote:

btw full disclosure I'm a big fan of the a345


TOTALLY agree - one of the prettiest planes; perfectly proportioned with those beautiful engines. :cloudnine:


:checkmark: :checkmark:
Since 60s: AA AC AS BA BD BF BN BR(85) BY B6 CO CZ(16) DG DL EA EI EN FI FL FT F9 HA HP ICX JI JQ J7 KE KL KS LH MC NW OC OO OZ(87) OZ(88) PA PI PN(97) PT QF QQ RM RO RV(99) RV(16) RW SK SM SQ S4 TI TS TW UA UK US UZ VS VX WA WN WS W7 XV YV YX(13) ZZ 9K

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests

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