A380 - Master Thread

[Dobbo]

SFO is operated non-stop on a non-ULR A350.

Apologies - I omitted to mention operated non-stop "without payload restrictions westbound"

[SQ025]

I think Airbus have managed to squeeze a failrly significant amount of extra performance out of the A350. This may allow later frames to operate, for example, LAX and SFO non-stop on a non-ULR airframe..

SFO is operated non-stop on a non-ULR A350.

This might mean a double daily EWR is realistic on the existing order. I can still see a niche for a one-stopper to New York. The EWRs will be premium heavy and there will be space for a more standard SQ configuration. The example of MAN/IAH is a good model to follow, where two (really three) traditionally thin routes have combined to form one increasingly strong route. Seems sensible to replicate this if possible. Unless SQ are really committed to the FRA-JFK market, they can pretty much pick any market they like

The FRA-JFK is now on the schedule for a few decades, even during the time SQ operated the Non-stop SIN-EWR. The one-stopper has survived, so I don't believe that the flight is a niche.
I think double daily to NYC is what it is, SQ will have enough challenges to fill both flights, and I think the stop in FRA will help them to do so. I don't see the point of moving it to another European city, the NYC route is crowded anyway and to go to a second tier city would just drive down yields.

[Dobbo]

I think Airbus have managed to squeeze a failrly significant amount of extra performance out of the A350. This may allow later frames to operate, for example, LAX and SFO non-stop on a non-ULR airframe.

This might mean a double daily EWR is realistic on the existing order.

I can still see a niche for a one-stopper to New York. The EWRs will be premium heavy and there will be space for a more standard SQ configuration. The example of MAN/IAH is a good model to follow, where two (really three) traditionally thin routes have combined to form one increasingly strong route. Seems sensible to replicate this if possible. Unless SQ are really committed to the FRA-JFK market, they can pretty much pick any market they like.

[SQfanatic]

I had wondered if and when SIN-EWR is resumed non-stop if SQ might revisit SIN-FRA-JFK. It could be rerouted through another European city, perhaps with USPC, on a B77W or A380.

FRA would become a double daily terminator.

I was questioning this too myself. They might put a 77W depending on how the overall loading could be and might also do a nonstop in addition. It all depends on how many 359ULR they get and how they can utilize it around the US Network.

[9V-SPL]

SQ217/218 is back to the A380s w.e.f today.

[Dobbo]

I had wondered if and when SIN-EWR is resumed non-stop if SQ might revisit SIN-FRA-JFK. It could be rerouted through another European city, perhaps with USPC, on a B77W or A380.

FRA would become a double daily terminator.

[Tonitan]

I've had 3 SQ345/346 within the last 2 years,the Upper deck J was filled to the brim always on both sectors. My Wife who had to travel with me had to waitlist on J as her departure date is very specific and in the end she had to go on LX which she also commented that she is lucky to have a seat as the load is very full as well. Which leads me to think about something which SQ228 wisely observed,ticket prices to ZRH are usually on the lower side compared to other European ports. Why is that so if the demand is healthy,a check on TG also revealed they have very attractive price to ZRH as well. Intense competition?

[Markovnikov]

How about ZRH? Currently it has 1 daily A380 like CDG. Load wise how is it?

Can't speak for J, but when I last flew SIN-ZRH back in end-April (a mid-week flight), the Y cabin was probably full to the brim. Didn't spot any empty Y seats at a glance.

And as what SQ228 suggested, the yield for each Y passenger may be lower, which is exactly what I experienced when I paid S$1k for a return ticket 6 months out.

[SQ228]

How about ZRH? Currently it has 1 daily A380 like CDG. Load wise how is it?

And like CDG it used to be served previously by 10 or 11 77W flights per week. It was packed until LX decided to fly to SIN again and since then ticket prices have been lower. Prior to DUS and the MAN/MUC decoupling, ZRH would always be the lowest ticket price when I went to book to the German speaking region.

It normally flies with all-upper-J configurations, so I don't know how well J would be doing, but the Y cabins on main deck are usually all full whenever I fly it. I suspect some of the reason for that is being one of the last flights to Europe at night, they use any spare capacity to reroute any passengers who missed connections at Changi using an LX flight at the other end to reach final destination.

My assumption is that ZRH gets upper-J because the Swiss can support a larger premium cabin and the flight is usually about 80% Swiss nationals from the accents that I hear. CDG is more of a tourist destination in comparison. Since the gap between the old A380s departing and the new A380s arriving will specifically affect the upper-Y fleet, it makes more sense in my mind to replace CDG's A380 with 77Ws.

[SQfanatic]

They were always forced into upgauging SQ26/5 to a degree. At the time there were the rumours that they wanted to go SIN-MXP-JFK with the 77W and turn the FRA flight into a terminator with the A380. THE JFK segment has never really had the load to justify an A380, but the fifth freedom negotiations with Italy dragged on and the 747 needed to be phased out, so SQ26/5 had to go A380. Soon after the announcements about the A380 flying to JFK, Italy began to play ball, but EK snapped up the MXP-JFK market with their own negotiations and SQ got a bit stuck.

I very much agree about the difficulties of utilising an A380, although I think it's probably unfair to judge it on the FRA-JFK sector. I guess LHR and SYD have been their most stable A380 destinations, while still being able to offer a variety of timings. Both airports are rather capacity constrained, have a high volume of passengers and are seen as "world cities", so they've got the right mix of capacity and prestige for an A380 to work well.

How about ZRH? Currently it has 1 daily A380 like CDG. Load wise how is it?

[SQ228]

They were always forced into upgauging SQ26/5 to a degree. At the time there were the rumours that they wanted to go SIN-MXP-JFK with the 77W and turn the FRA flight into a terminator with the A380. THE JFK segment has never really had the load to justify an A380, but the fifth freedom negotiations with Italy dragged on and the 747 needed to be phased out, so SQ26/5 had to go A380. Soon after the announcements about the A380 flying to JFK, Italy began to play ball, but EK snapped up the MXP-JFK market with their own negotiations and SQ got a bit stuck.

I very much agree about the difficulties of utilising an A380, although I think it's probably unfair to judge it on the FRA-JFK sector. I guess LHR and SYD have been their most stable A380 destinations, while still being able to offer a variety of timings. Both airports are rather capacity constrained, have a high volume of passengers and are seen as "world cities", so they've got the right mix of capacity and prestige for an A380 to work well.

[Dobbo]

I had heard they wanted to play around with SQ25/26 - nothing specific, and I haven't heard anything for some time.

[SQfanatic]

I wonder as we know SQ's Europe routes are preforming weakly whether A380 is actually useful for those destinations or it will be better to replace them with smaller A350s and increase frequency.

In the long term, SQ should seriously consider whether A380 is suitable to remain in the fleet. A380 is too big and it reduces the flexibility of the fleet and routes served by A380.

Sydney, for an example, if SQ never have A380, we will be seeing hourly or bi-hourly departure from 7pm - 1am and again from 7am - 10am ex-Singapore, instad of just 5x daily.

I can understand for high demand routes like Australia like Sydney. It's just other airports in the Northern Hemisphere that probably one day could otherwise go 77WR. As the above poster suggests, it will only be a matter of time SQ moves to more frequency/choice with 77WR like CX. One of my other friends flew PEY on the way back and the load was pretty light on the A380s back to JFK. If the way the loading is like, of course SQ will eventually be prompted to make most NA routes either the 359 or 77WR.

I have to be honest, I have the same opinion of the A380 being too big. I was crazy about it one time in my life, but I really prefer the 77W to the A380 I flew with EK once.

[Jumbojet Lover]

The A380 is useful for slot-constrained airports to increase capacity without increasing flights, like at LHR, NRT and PEK. And for LAX, it could have been the case whereby SQ couldn't find another Asian stopover with high-yield traffic to justify a 2nd flight, hence capacity was consolidated with the once-daily A380. However they dropped the A380 once ICN was open to them for a 5th freedom service to LAX. The proposition for the A380 weakens when slots are no longer an issue. The opening up of HND alleviated traffic from NRT. The same will happen when Beijing's 2nd airport opens, and whenever LHR get its 3rd runway.

Personally I hope SQ keeps a small fleet of A380s. There's a certain prestige to flying the all-double-decker aircraft, with an A380-exclusive 'Suites' product. But realistically, a frequency-over-capacity approach with smaller twins like Cathay may be what SQ needs for stronger financials.

[Metropolitan Airlines]

I wonder as we know SQ's Europe routes are preforming weakly whether A380 is actually useful for those destinations or it will be better to replace them with smaller A350s and increase frequency.

In the long term, SQ should seriously consider whether A380 is suitable to remain in the fleet. A380 is too big and it reduces the flexibility of the fleet and routes served by A380.

Sydney, for an example, if SQ never have A380, we will be seeing hourly or bi-hourly departure from 7pm - 1am and again from 7am - 10am ex-Singapore, instad of just 5x daily.