SQ B747-400 withdrawal thread

[zvezda]

Thanks lame38.5! Does that mean 9V-SPL is in the process of leaving the fleet?

[MAN Flyer]

hello ladies n gentlemen, i'm female by the way haha

Oops, that was me.

My apologies. Post duly edited.

Thanks for the update!.

[SQflyergirl]

Found this site the other day:

http://www.caas.gov.sg/caas/en/Aviat...008/index.html

Interesting

[Tom/PER]

Tar also for the updates lame38.5.

What's the go with -SPA then? BCF or pax?

[lame38.5]

Thanks lame38.5! Does that mean 9V-SPL is in the process of leaving the fleet?

yes, SPL still undergoing some last maintenance, test flight was done. SPL is returned to lessor. no painting was done.

i know tat pax-to-freighter will start soon..in feb or april i haf no info at tis moment. =)

[kelvgoh]

I flew SPL on the 29th of December LHR-SIN. I think she did SQ237/238 on the 30th. probably her farewell.

It's a pity, she still seemed in pretty decent knick in J upper deck.

And also, she's one of the two painted in SQ's tropical livery - imho one of the best liveries ever to grace the skies. The other bird, we all know...

[sumitsan]

And also, she's one of the two painted in SQ's tropical livery - imho one of the best liveries ever to grace the skies. The other bird, we all know...

Yeah, I agree. It is too bad they removed the livery after the unfortunate situation of 9V-SPK (May her and the ppl that were lost in there continue to rest in peace).

Where is SPL headed to?

[zvezda]

It is too bad they removed the livery after the unfortunate situation of 9V-SPK....

I would have made the same decision. Too many people would have either been scared or have had negative associations reinforced. I probably would have pulled 9V-SPL from service for a repaint upon her first return to SIN.

[sumitsan]

I would have made the same decision. Too many people would have either been scared or have had negative associations reinforced. I probably would have pulled 9V-SPL from service for a repaint upon her first return to SIN.

I definitely see your point on this, but then again, it depends on the people too I guess. I mean, on my last trip, when I booked flights with as much Megatops as possible, I've had some frequent SQ travellers who asked why I would want to travel on an SQ Megatop, since that is the only plane in SQ fleet history that has had a fatal crash. Actually, they even ask why am I even adamant on travelling on 747-400s since they claim there have been numerous problems (although I can't think of that many) with them with other airlines, especially with Qantas in the last few years (I only know of 2 situations here). But to me, it is not the actual plane or the livery. What happened to SPK from what I gather was a miscommunication between Control Tower and pilots, but I don't know the full details on that. I was a little upset with MAS when they made the public statement blaming SQ for it, immediately after the crash.

By the way, it was mentioned that SPL is being returned to the lessor. I thought SPR, which is a 747-4HD, is the only leased 744. I thought all the planes that were 747-412 were owned by SQ, and from what I know, SPL was also a -412. Can someone clarify this?

[kelvgoh]

There has been previous discussion on the concept of leasing, you can check it out at:

http://www.sqtalk.com/forums/showpos...0&postcount=44

It is basically a form of asset financing - such a structure provides financial benefits for SQ as opposed to outright ownership.

[zvezda]

What happened to SPK from what I gather was a miscommunication between Control Tower and pilots, but I don't know the full details on that.

The tower was not at fault. The primary fault was the pilots' who were not where they thought they were and failed to verify their location before attempting to takeoff. The pilots knew that a runway was closed and that it had construction equipment on it, yet they still failed to verify their location. Secondary fault was the airport's for not putting up clearer signs at each entrance to the closed runway.

As a result, airports are now required to put up big red lighted Xs whenever a runway is blocked by something dangerous, such as the construction equipment on the closed runway which 9V-SPK impacted at speed.

At least one of the pilots had the audacity to try to get his commercial license back. I don't think he should be allowed to operate anything more dangerous to others than a bicycle.

[sumitsan]

Wow, that's a really bad of an error for the pilots. I live here in Toronto, so the reports we heard were the summary of everything and that everything was a miscommunication. I guess I learned something new today. All I know is the news was shocking and disturbing when I heard of it in 2000.

[SQTalker]

But TPE was lacking of the ground radar equipment, I would had thought that if the weather was poor, & if the airport had adequate or the minimum safety measures, that can be avoided isn't it...?

My verdict is TPE airport authority should still hold some sort of responsibility, if the tower can't see the plane made the wrong turn due to poor rain & low visibility, at least a radar can tell...does any one agree here...?

[SQflyergirl]

I thought SPR, which is a 747-4HD, is the only leased 744.

SPR was a 4H6

[zvezda]

But TPE was lacking of the ground radar equipment, I would had thought that if the weather was poor, & if the airport had adequate or the minimum safety measures, that can be avoided isn't it...?

My verdict is TPE airport authority should still hold some sort of responsibility, if the tower can't see the plane made the wrong turn due to poor rain & low visibility, at least a radar can tell...does any one agree here...?

I agree completely. That's why I wrote that it was secondarily the airport's fault. However, the primary responsibility for ensuring that the aircraft is on the correct runway belongs to the pilots.