Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A350 Deliveries and Routes

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

  • Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
    What exactly makes you wonder if SQ is on the right track? The fact that they are the sole customer?

    As stated in the article, it did not require significant investment from Airbus, which suggests that it did not cost SQ significantly more to acquire. Furthermore, the operating costs will be lower than when the A340-500 was utilized. Consequently, I have found that New York-Singapore PEY fares from EWR are similar to the one-stop JFK service, while getting me to Singapore sooner. In any case, the ULR aircraft can always be converted to standard SQ A350 configuration and be utilized as a normal A350. I believe SQ has done their sums right and is in a better position to make the ULR work on the non-stops compared to the A340-500 fleet.
    I would go as far as to think that they half regretted ending the non-stops with A345 in 2013 because oil price collapsed in 2014 and fell further in 2015. Even today oil price is largely under US$70, compared to near US$110 in 2013. Given that the A345 had about 30% higher fuel capacity than the A350ULR, I believe the non-stops could have worked itself out with the lower oil price had they held on in 2013. Stopping the flights only yielded the market to competitors. The speed at which SQ is reinstating the non-stops and adding more to SFO probably indicates how badly they need the non-stops as part of its global network.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Trent1000 View Post
      The speed at which SQ is reinstating the non-stops and adding more to SFO probably indicates how badly they need the non-stops as part of its global network.
      I had the same thought. They're not waiting for two aircraft to be able to launch daily from the get-go, but starting with 3x for the first week as soon as they can!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Trent1000 View Post
        I would go as far as to think that they half regretted ending the non-stops with A345 in 2013 because oil price collapsed in 2014 and fell further in 2015. Even today oil price is largely under US$70, compared to near US$110 in 2013. Given that the A345 had about 30% higher fuel capacity than the A350ULR, I believe the non-stops could have worked itself out with the lower oil price had they held on in 2013. Stopping the flights only yielded the market to competitors. The speed at which SQ is reinstating the non-stops and adding more to SFO probably indicates how badly they need the non-stops as part of its global network.
        Based on what you're saying, I think you're indicating SQ is starting off with the 3x weekly, and once they get more 359ULR, they can up it to daily. Correct me if I'm wrong.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
          What exactly makes you wonder if SQ is on the right track? The fact that they are the sole customer?
          To me that's an indicator that the economics of the plane are questionable. The advantage of the ULR is limited and EWR for instance cant be operated with payload restrictions.

          Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
          Consequently, I have found that New York-Singapore PEY fares from EWR are similar to the one-stop JFK service, while getting me to Singapore sooner.
          My quickscan gave me a different picture. The PEY fares on the direct flight to EWR are comparable to the Y fares for the one-stop. On Westcoast routes SQ is trying to beat the UA Y fares. They may want to gain market share with low fares and eventually raise fares over the time, but I doubt that. I believe that they will always have to sell these PEY seats with discounts to fill up the plane.

          As soon as the fuel prices increase, the business model of BIZ/PEY set up may not be sustainable. And as it looks right now, fuel prices are on the rise and the may face again the same "wrong" timing as they did with the A345s.

          Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
          In any case, the ULR aircraft can always be converted to standard SQ A350 configuration and be utilized as a normal A350.
          Easier said than done. There is a certain investment required and the planes will be out of operation for quite a while.
          I still believe that they should have opted for a three class configuration, maybe with more J seats. This would give them more flexibility with the A350 fleet and I strongly believe that UA proved that Y seats on ULR-flights are sellable.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SQfanatic View Post
            Based on what you're saying, I think you're indicating SQ is starting off with the 3x weekly, and once they get more 359ULR, they can up it to daily. Correct me if I'm wrong.
            I am neither indicating nor postulating, merely reiterating exactly what SQ announced:
            The route will initially be served three times a week, departing Singapore on Monday, Thursday and Saturday. Daily operations will commence from 18 October after an additional A350-900ULR aircraft enters service.
            Source: http://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/us.../ne2018-180530

            Originally posted by SQ025 View Post
            To me that's an indicator that the economics of the plane are questionable. The advantage of the ULR is limited and EWR for instance cant be operated with payload restrictions.
            ...
            I still believe that they should have opted for a three class configuration, maybe with more J seats. This would give them more flexibility with the A350 fleet and I strongly believe that UA proved that Y seats on ULR-flights are sellable.
            Did you even read the CAPA article??
            Without prior knowledge or other information about the A350-900ULR, one can quote the CAPA verbatim to respond specifically to your two points above:

            However, this extra fuel capacity can realistically only be used if a low density premium-focused configuration is selected. With a normal configuration (approximately 300 passengers), the A350-900ULR would be too heavy to take off when loaded with passengers and the extra 24,000 litres in fuel.

            Therefore, the A350-900ULR is only useful for airlines that have a requirement to fly routes of 18 to 20 hours in a very low density configuration (100 to 200 seats, depending on the exact length of route). There are not likely any airlines with such a requirement, given there are not many – if any – markets similar to Singapore-US in terms of route length and premium mix.
            There you go. It says that there is probably no other airline with a route connecting two big finance hubs that cannot already be connected with today's aircraft economically. Qantas wants to fly Sydney-London, but with a 3-class configuration like their Perth-London route. SQ cannot wait a few more years for an aircraft that can perform the route with a standard 3-class configuration, thus elected for the fastest option and go for a 2-class configuration which it has experience operating and has data on the demand etc. to make it work.

            An A350-900ULR in standard SQ 3-class configuration with all the fuel needed to make it EWR would not be able to take-off because it's too heavy. There's no Economy Class not because SQ doesn't think it can sell them on an ultra long-haul flight, but primarily because a 3-class A350-900ULR will not be able to take-off from SIN to EWR. Fuel cannot be sacrificed, so it has to be payload, in terms of seats and passengers etc. The SQ CEO has admitted that there are still payload concerns but cargo would be the first to be sacrificed (source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-900ul-449158/).

            UA is cancelling their LAX-SIN and shifting it to a second daily SFO-SIN rotation. Some other forum boards have suggested that the 787-9 is really being pushed to the limit of operations and UA has to block off many seats to reduce the payload on many occasions, so much so that it is not viable to operate the LAX-SIN flight on a year-round basis.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
              Qantas wants to fly Sydney-London, but with a 3-class configuration like their Perth-London route.
              For a reason. The configuration like the 2-class chosen by SQ is difficult to fill without slashing prices to a certain extend. That is exactly my point.

              Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
              SQ cannot wait a few more years for an aircraft that can perform the route with a standard 3-class configuration, thus elected for the fastest option and go for a 2-class configuration which it has experience operating and has data on the demand etc. to make it work.
              Is not that they cant wait, they don't want to wait. Yes, I understand that the competition situation on the NYC route is quite challenging as there many option to choose from which makes it difficult for SQ with their one-stop flight to stay in the game.

              The 2-class put them into the situation that they will constantly run promotions in PEY to fill the cabin. I doubt that this will be sustainable in the midterm. At least for now it seems like that SQ can't charge a premium for the nonstop in PEY (I didn't check the J fares).

              Originally posted by Jumbojet Lover View Post
              UA is cancelling their LAX-SIN and shifting it to a second daily SFO-SIN rotation. Some other forum boards have suggested that the 787-9 is really being pushed to the limit of operations and UA has to block off many seats to reduce the payload on many occasions, so much so that it is not viable to operate the LAX-SIN flight on a year-round basis.
              UA can act more flexible if economics are not right, as they do provide multiple onward connections and are not as dependent on point-to-point as SQ would be, so it is more easy to skip LAX in favor of SFO. Still they seem to be able to fill two dailies to the Westcoast. But the example shows that you need some flexibility with your fleet in case it is not working the way you have planned. SQ will be less flexible, the 2-class configuration will tie them into the ULR business, at least for a while.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by SQ025 View Post
                For a reason. The configuration like the 2-class chosen by SQ is difficult to fill without slashing prices to a certain extend. That is exactly my point.



                Is not that they cant wait, they don't want to wait. Yes, I understand that the competition situation on the NYC route is quite challenging as there many option to choose from which makes it difficult for SQ with their one-stop flight to stay in the game.

                The 2-class put them into the situation that they will constantly run promotions in PEY to fill the cabin. I doubt that this will be sustainable in the midterm. At least for now it seems like that SQ can't charge a premium for the nonstop in PEY (I didn't check the J fares).



                UA can act more flexible if economics are not right, as they do provide multiple onward connections and are not as dependent on point-to-point as SQ would be, so it is more easy to skip LAX in favor of SFO. Still they seem to be able to fill two dailies to the Westcoast. But the example shows that you need some flexibility with your fleet in case it is not working the way you have planned. SQ will be less flexible, the 2-class configuration will tie them into the ULR business, at least for a while.
                What we don't know is the cost structure of the non-stops. You made an assumption that the lower ticket price equates to not being able to fill the plane, which I am not convinced. It could be a complex equation of landing fees and airport charges/costs saved vs extra fuel and staff costs vs higher yields on premium classes? In the upcoming increase of non-stops to SFO, however, SQ chose to send the ULR instead of a regular A350. This is very telling to me because the regular A350 has been operating without much problems for some time now.

                Recall when things became difficult in the previous non-stops with the A345 in 2008-9, SQ chose to switch to an all business class layout to ensure continued viability with the flights.

                In the upcoming restart of the EWR/LAX nonstops, SQ chose to configure the A350ULR with only 161 seats, which is less than the original 181 seat-configuration in the A345.

                All these indicate that the non-stops demand are premium heavy, and that demand held up through the great recession of 2008 and the crazy oil price then. The speed (and fanfare) at which SQ is reinstating the flights now indicate that this is likely true, and the decision to terminate the routes in 2013 was not because of weak demand, but other considerations, possibly a buy back deal with Airbus for new A350s or simply a miscalculation.

                You are right to mention about having flexibility to fall back on, just in case. The ULR can be configured back to a regular A350 if the non-stops fail. I am not sure how expensive or how long the conversion will take, what we are told is that the only difference between a ULR and a regular A350 is a modified fuel system. How long does SQ need to reconfigure an aircraft? A few weeks?

                I agree that UA can send its 787-9 immediately to somewhere else which gives them the flexibility you mentioned. But they are stretching a B-market aircraft to its limits and that restricts their capability on the ultra long haul. As Jumbojet Lover mentioned, that handicap was evident in UA's LAX-SIN nonstop.

                Cheers.

                Comment


                • This discussion makes me wonder why airlines and airline analysts keep focusing on measures such yield, RPK, ASK, etc when the "S", ie, the seat is not a standard item.

                  My suggestion: Use the measure of area, not seats, as the denominator. You get a fixed amount of space (measured in square meters) on an aircraft type, say A350. It's up to the airline how to configure the space (types of seats, bar, shower, bowling alley, whatever) in way they can maximize revenue (and minimize cost) per available square meter flown for a kilometer (RPSMK??). Then we'd be comparing apples to apples. That would also help the airline compare types of aircraft.

                  End of rant....back to work.

                  Comment


                  • When is SGA expected to be delivered?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SQfanatic View Post
                      When is SGA expected to be delivered?
                      9V-SGA is expected to be delivered in the first half of September. She completed her 3rd Flight yesterday and could be transferred to the Delivery Centre soon for CAF.



                      As for the other SQ A350-900 ULR, 9V-SGB, 9V-SGC and 9V-SGE are in the Flight Testing stage and will probably be delivered sometime in September and October. 9V-SGD should have her First Flight soon and should be delivered by end of October. 9V-SGF and 9V-SGG are still in the FAL and should be delivered by December.

                      Comment


                      • 9V-SGC has flown to XFW (Hamburg) for Painting. Expect her to be there for 2 weeks before she flies back to Toulouse fully painted.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SQKevin View Post
                          9V-SGA is expected to be delivered in the first half of September. She completed her 3rd Flight yesterday and could be transferred to the Delivery Centre soon for CAF.



                          As for the other SQ A350-900 ULR, 9V-SGB, 9V-SGC and 9V-SGE are in the Flight Testing stage and will probably be delivered sometime in September and October. 9V-SGD should have her First Flight soon and should be delivered by end of October. 9V-SGF and 9V-SGG are still in the FAL and should be delivered by December.
                          Cool. Thanks for the info.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by SQ025 View Post

                            As soon as the fuel prices increase, the business model of BIZ/PEY set up may not be sustainable. And as it looks right now, fuel prices are on the rise and the may face again the same "wrong" timing as they did with the A345s.


                            I kind of have the same feeling. Will this really work? A345UL will be a "special" type of aircraft. I wonder, what it will do if it is not flying to US?
                            visit my blog

                            Comment


                            • any idea when the regional A350 will be delivered?

                              Comment


                              • Both 9V-SGA and 9V-SGB performed test Flights at the same time earlier today. This is the first time 2 SQ A350-900 were in the air for Test Flights at the same time.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X