Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it time SQ put showers on their planes - especially long haul?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I don't think SQ would follow EK. As others have said, it's more of a gimmick rather than a feature if you ask me. If SQ wants to have something special onboard, I think a bar would be better.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by bmchris View Post
      The amount of water? How about the amount of fuel a plane carries?
      What a bizarre comparison. You need the fuel for the plane to fly, you don't need the additional weight of the water unless you're fitting the gimmicks.

      Originally posted by Russ View Post
      Agree I would prefer to see better treatment of TPPs and QPPs than to try to add more to R Class.
      Absolutely.

      Comment


      • #33
        probably closer to 0.5kg..you burn abt 4% extra for every hr of flight..13 hrs would be closer to 50%

        Originally posted by Russ View Post
        For every extra kg of water you have to carry on board, it will mean about 0.3kg of extra fuel for a 13 hour flight. So assuming you carry an extra 500 litres of water for the shower, you need to carry about 150kg of fuel, which means you have to drop 650kg of cargo or 5-6 pax if you are already taking off at MTOW.

        Agree I would prefer to see better treatment of TPPs and QPPs than to try to add more to R Class. Ever since they dropped LPP from their scheme, I see no reason to go beyond qualification and I split my business between SQ and Qantas. Before that, it was SQ all the way.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by bmchris View Post
          Just like how The Private Room is more innovative than LH's First Class Terminal? I mean they do have bigger chairs than LH when dining.
          Lounges haven't been a critical component of SQ's differentiation. I also don't recall TPR being marketed by SQ as a service innovation, but my memory may be fuzzy on that second part.
          Originally posted by bmchris View Post
          C'mon, if we take off our SQ glasses, we'll likely see that they don't have the monopoly on innovation.
          You like taking leaps of logic, eh? I never said that SQ had a monopoly on innovation. Just that they position themselves as an innovator. For them to follow EK's lead, they would have to be convinced that onboard showers move business. As I've already mentioned, I have yet to read even suggestive evidence that showers are a deciding factor.

          Well, except for your advocacy on this thread.
          ‘Lean into the sharp points’

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by sqdazz View Post
            im scared there might be some emergency while im showering and id have to run through the cabin naked! or worse, slide down an evac slide hehe
            do you mean you are scared by this event, or the rest of the passengers?
            There's only One way to fly.... SINGAPORE AIRLINES!
            If SQ is too expensive, the other way to fly is Qatar Airways

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by LukeGT View Post
              do you mean you are scared by this event, or the rest of the passengers?
              Both I think! hehehe
              My SQ and flying Videos: Youtube My Travel Blog: AussieFlyer.net

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by sunnyday View Post
                probably closer to 0.5kg..you burn abt 4% extra for every hr of flight..13 hrs would be closer to 50%
                I think on the A380, it is lower than 4% and I was just being a bit conservative in my estimates so that no one can say "you are bullshitting, it is not that much"

                Comment


                • #38
                  ok noted
                  4% is the accepted rule of thumb for the 777..and i guess the 380 is a little more efficient

                  Originally posted by Russ View Post
                  I think on the A380, it is lower than 4% and I was just being a bit conservative in my estimates so that no one can say "you are bullshitting, it is not that much"

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by SilverChris View Post
                    I don't think SQ would follow EK.
                    If they did, Y will be 3-4-3 and J will be 2-4-2 and F will be 2-2-2

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It would be horrible IMO and to be honest if you actually are THAT sweaty when you board by the time you have sat down, the flights taken off etc you will have cooled down.

                      Anyway as the fasten seatbelt sign seems to bong on at the slightest bit of turbulence these days you wouldn't have a chance to!
                      Last edited by 225; 13 December 2010, 04:51 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X