Singapore's Future Long-Haul Fleet Usage

[Kaitak744]

Based on current orders, I formulated a plan as to where Singapore Airlines would use its aircraft in the future.

19 A380s = ~9 routes
SIN-SYD(3x), SIN-LHR(3x), SIN-FRA-JFK, SIN-NRT-LAX, SIN-HKG-SFO

19 777-300ERs:
15 777-300ERs= one to one replacement of the routes served by the 15 long-haul 777-200ERs.
4 777-300ERs= SIN-ZRH, SIN-CDG, SIN-FRA.

787-9: SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR, + expansion to other long-haul destinations.
A330-300: buffer before A350 arrives.
A350-900: expansion and replacement of 777-200 in the intra-Asia routes.

Thoughts?

[Guy Betsy]

What about the 744s?

I think SQ will still keep a couple around...

[SQ168]

A380s = SIN-FRA-JFK

Thoughts?

I don't think SQ25/26 is likely to be operated by A380. Based on past experiences in C and Y, the loads between JFK and FRA and vv had been light. The aircraft would also be sitting around in JFK for a whole day, which is a waste for such a big aircraft.

[RJA]

Based on current orders, I formulated a plan as to where Singapore Airlines would use its aircraft in the future.

19 A380s = ~9 routes
SIN-SYD(3x), SIN-LHR(3x), SIN-FRA-JFK, SIN-NRT-LAX, SIN-HKG-SFO

19 777-300ERs:
15 777-300ERs= one to one replacement of the routes served by the 15 long-haul 777-200ERs.
4 777-300ERs= SIN-ZRH, SIN-CDG, SIN-FRA.

787-9: SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR, + expansion to other long-haul destinations.
A330-300: buffer before A350 arrives.
A350-900: expansion and replacement of 777-200 in the intra-Asia routes.

Thoughts?

Doesn't look very realistic. For starters the 77W is not a 1-for-1 77E replacement. What you're also omitting are the possible new longhaul destinations and increased frequencies for some existing ones that would become possible with more longhaul aircraft arriving. MEL is likely to get at least 1x A380 in my opinion.

And I was under the impression that the 789 would be used regionally and A350 for long haul (likely replacing the 77E).

I don't think SQ25/26 is likely to be operated by A380. Based on past experiences in C and Y, the loads between JFK and FRA and vv had been light. The aircraft would also be sitting around in JFK for a whole day, which is a waste for such a big aircraft.

What if in future they decided to axe FRA-JFK and instead serve JFK via a Chinese city (PEK or PVG)? Then they could operate the A380 on one of the FRA flights. While it's not likely any time soon, but a few years down the line it could be possible.

[singaporeairlinesboi]

In july singapore will use thier new 777w to Los Angeles via taipei. Why cant it be SFO via Hong kong? gahhhh

[Kaitak744]

Doesn't look very realistic. For starters the 77W is not a 1-for-1 77E replacement. What you're also omitting are the possible new longhaul destinations and increased frequencies for some existing ones that would become possible with more longhaul aircraft arriving. MEL is likely to get at least 1x A380 in my opinion.

Well, based on the routes the 777-300ER seems to be serving so far, it seems to be a 1-1 777-200ER replacement. Also, the 777-300ER carriers less passengers than the 777-200ER, so it is not really "bigger" than the 777-200ER. Also, by moving all long-haul to 777-300ER and A380, Singapore gets all its long-haul destinations served with its new F/C/Y products. This would be one of their most important goals, given that Thai, Malaysian, Cathay Pacific, and Emirates (all their chief competitors) have began introducing new, modern, interiors.

So, to sum up, the 777-300ER, based on all the above I just listed, seems to be a perfect long-haul 777-200ER replacement. (note that these "replaced" 777-200ERs will not leave the fleet. They will simply be used to destinations in Australia, and Asia (perhaps MEL))

[Kaitak744]

I don't think SQ25/26 is likely to be operated by A380. Based on past experiences in C and Y, the loads between JFK and FRA and vv had been light. The aircraft would also be sitting around in JFK for a whole day, which is a waste for such a big aircraft.

What do you mean by such a waste for such a big aircraft? Their 747-400 does the same today, and that is a "big aircraft." Qantas has 4-5 747s sitting around at LAX all day, everyday.

What about the 744s?

I think SQ will still keep a couple around...

Of coarse they will. I was just talking long term. By time they get all their A380s, the 747-400 passenger version will likely be gone from the fleet.

[RJA]

Well, based on the routes the 777-300ER seems to be serving so far, it seems to be a 1-1 777-200ER replacement. Also, the 777-300ER carriers less passengers than the 777-200ER, so it is not really "bigger" than the 777-200ER. Also, by moving all long-haul to 777-300ER and A380, Singapore gets all its long-haul destinations served with its new F/C/Y products. This would be one of their most important goals, given that Thai, Malaysian, Cathay Pacific, and Emirates (all their chief competitors) have began introducing new, modern, interiors.

So, to sum up, the 777-300ER, based on all the above I just listed, seems to be a perfect long-haul 777-200ER replacement. (note that these "replaced" 777-200ERs will not leave the fleet. They will simply be used to destinations in Australia, and Asia (perhaps MEL))

Your reasoning is seriously flawed, as are your supposed facts. 77Ws have not been replacing 77Es on a 1-1 basis nor will they. They'll operate selected routes where the existing 744 is too much capacity or higher yielding 77E routes (i.e. those with strong premium demand). Those 77Es that are displaced can then be used to increase frequencies on remaining 77E routes, or open up new ones. 77W seats fewer passengers because they're clearly aimed at high-yield routes with strong premium demand and hence the large premium cabins. The 77E seats more as they're clearly aimed at long-thin routes where yields are not quite as strong and hence the larger Y/considerably smaller J/no F.

And to suggest that SQ would offer a 3-class service to all of their longhaul destinations just for the sake of showing down rivals is simply ridiculous, they'll offer 3 classes of service if there's a sufficient demand for it!

[SQ168]

What if in future they decided to axe FRA-JFK and instead serve JFK via a Chinese city (PEK or PVG)? Then they could operate the A380 on one of the FRA flights. While it's not likely any time soon, but a few years down the line it could be possible.

Interesting! Is SQ planning to serve JFK via PEK or PVG?

I also think they could keep JFK flight as is, and operate the A380 on SQ325/326.

[SQ168]

What do you mean by such a waste for such a big aircraft? Their 747-400 does the same today, and that is a "big aircraft."

The main point is, I believe, loads between JFK and FRA vv do not warrant an A380 operation. If FRA ever going to see the A380 then I would think they would put it on SQ325/326 and replace SQ25/26 with 77W when the 744s are retired.

SQ have/had more 744s than they will ever have A380s, thus it would make more sense to deploy them to routes that warrant their usage, rather than having one sitting all day for 12+ hours doing nothing in JFK where it can make money somewhere else.

[Greatfox]

I'm speculating here, but the afternoon MEL-SIN flight may just as well get an A380 on it, because there is a sizeable amount of passengers that have to get to SIN to connect to other parts of the world

[MAN Flyer]

Well, based on the routes the 777-300ER seems to be serving so far, it seems to be a 1-1 777-200ER replacement.

I suggest a little more research is in order, as the 77W is not just a 772ER replacement. The first destination to get the 77W was CDG, which was a 744 destination. This was followed by ZRH and FRA, both of which are served by 744's.

SQ26/25 may get the 77W due to the poor loads up front on FRA-JFK.

[RJA]

Interesting! Is SQ planning to serve JFK via PEK or PVG?

Just wild/baseless speculation on my part. But wouldn't it be great if they could?

[Kaitak744]

I suggest a little more research is in order, as the 77W is not just a 772ER replacement. The first destination to get the 77W was CDG, which was a 744 destination. This was followed by ZRH and FRA, both of which are served by 744's.

SIN-ICN-SFO, SIN-TPE-LAX, SIN-Milan-Barcelona..... routes served previously by 777-200ERs.

Ok, so not all 777-200ER routes may end up getting the 777-300ER, but it would be awfully silly for Singapore to keep their old F/C/Y products on those flights.

Does anyone think the 15 777-200ERs will be refurbished with the new C and Y?

[9V-JKL]

SIN-ICN-SFO, SIN-TPE-LAX, SIN-Milan-Barcelona..... routes served previously by 777-200ERs.

SIN-TPE-LAX was 744 but went 77E when SQ added the non-stop. So going 77W is again adding front-end capacity.
SIN-MXP-BCN started as a 77E but was obviously good enough to upgrade to 77W given the good front-end loads.