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

[225]

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!

[Nick C]

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

[sunnyday]

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

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"

[Russ]

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"

[sqdazz]

do you mean you are scared by this event, or the rest of the passengers?

Both I think! hehehe

[LukeGT]

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?

[jjpb3]

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.

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.

[sunnyday]

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

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.

[MAN Flyer]

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.

Agree I would prefer to see better treatment of TPPs and QPPs than to try to add more to R Class.

Absolutely.

[SilverChris]

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.

[Russ]

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.

[bmchris]

Sorry guys, but you can forget it. SQ will never do it. Imagine the amount of water to be uplifted and therefore the amount of fuel to be uplifted in order to carry all these extra weight

The amount of water? How about the amount of fuel a plane carries? All this is likely a rounding error. The difficulty as I understand it is around sealing, ventilation and humidity of the shower, and isolating it from the fuselage. You don't want rust developing. But then again, we're not talking rocket science.

[Aulia Harun]

There's a large number of good points being made here and I'm beginning to regret my initial opinion. Therefore, I agree this would not be a benefit for SQ given the circumstances. Sorry everyone for my rather quick initial response to the subject matter, there was so much I overlooked in the practical and economical sense.

[bmchris]

I'd be very surprised if SQ considered this a great marketing scheme. It would obviously be a me-too move (EK is well-publicized as the first-mover), and so, inconsistent with SQ's positioning as an innovator.

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.

C'mon, if we take off our SQ glasses, we'll likely see that they don't have the monopoly on innovation.

[kapitan]

I am going to pity the cabin crew who will have to do the cleaning after each pax uses the shower.

If that really happens 1 day, the shower will only be available to long haul flights, definitely not HKG....

I will still prefer to shower in the lounge.

As SQ emphasises safety a lot, imagine when the air pocket or turbulence sets in, what if you were showering halfway? I doubt this will come anytime soon, on SQ that is. Safety is of number one importance to them.

Maybe the cleaning auntie in the lounge will be seconded to SQ!