A350 Deliveries and Routes

[9V-JKL]

I find the regional config rather interesting.

40J means that there'll be a small J section after door 2 unlike the 78J which has J between doors 1 & 2.
I wonder why? Could it be so that it can be re-config to a long-haul bird more easily if need be?

[9V-JKL]

So it appears the regional A350 will have the same everything as the 787, just proportionally less of it, so for use on routes with lower traffic or higher frequency perhaps.

I believe cabin length would be the main reason.

The 359 cabin is shorter than the 78J. Between door 1 & 4, the 359 is 3.11m (center-to-center) shorter than the 78J.

[Heihei]

I find the regional config rather interesting.

40J means that there'll be a small J section after door 2 unlike the 78J which has J between doors 1 & 2.
I wonder why? Could it be so that it can be re-config to a long-haul bird more easily if need be?

yes...3 more rows after the galley at DR2

[pokfur]

yes...3 more rows after the galley at DR2

If that's the case then SQ really only managed to squeeze out 2 more seats with the new regional J into the same space between door 1 and 2 as compared to the 2013 J. Hmmm.

[259850]

So it appears the regional A350 will have the same everything as the 787, just proportionally less of it, so for use on routes with lower traffic or higher frequency perhaps.

Actually there are 4 more business seats. SQ will argue that it would be used for more "premium" high frequency routes. HKG seems to be the most obvious route for the regional A350.

[SQ228]

Actually there are 4 more business seats. SQ will argue that it would be used for more "premium" high frequency routes. HKG seems to be the most obvious route for the regional A350.

Ah, so there are! I did a simple sum regarding the 787 forgetting about SQ's refusal to use Row 13.

In that case the 78J makes sense as a replacement of the current A330 since going from A330 to A359 regional would add very few Y seats but a significant increase to J, whereas the 78J will add more to both cabins. The A359 regional will in turn increase or retain the number of J seats when replacing a 772 as well as increasing the Y count a little as well, depending of course on the variant of 772.

[FN-GM]

The 773 fleet has to be retired sooner or later.

Having had 2006 Y and IFE I think they will be here for a while yet.

[flyguy]

believed few of these 773s are 15 years old already and keeping them for another few years would mean that SIA will be flying its oldest passenger planes in its history. This contrast to the days when SIA "retires" its planes in 10 to 12 years old and boasts the youngest average fleet.

[vasqflyer]

I have been thinking about the North American strategy over the last few days and have come up with my predictions below. I don't know the US market all that well and so the destinations are based purely on their size / hub potential. I have started with my assumptions so that you can all see where I am coming from.

Assumptions
1) While I have been in two minds about SFO going to a ULR, I think that is the more likely outcome now. As I see it, one of the biggest difficulties and costs of a small ULR fleet is that either flights have be reduced for regular maintenance (eg, Virgin Aus with the 777s) / an airline needs to effectively have a spare airplane (eg, SQ A340s). If SQ moves SFO to the ULR then they can leverage the existing A350s to help cover regular maintenance of the ULRs. With 21 long haul A350s, SQ already has to keep some slack in the schedule for maintenance. If they extend this slack to also cover the ULRs then that will me more efficient that having a spare ULR most of the time. They could do this by for example having the ULRs going in for their at times when it would be better to have economy seats on offer for SFO and use the A350s for the flights at those times. I do note that this does create a product risk for the flights though with people expecting PEY and getting economy.

2) Following on from above, SQ will have more ULR capacity and will look to open another ULR route to North America. This would make the ULR fleet more cost effective as aircraft usage increases.

3) SQ will not want to lose any of their fifth freedom rights. They were really hard to get and are valuable.

4) Some more long haul A350s capacity will become available over time as BNE gets some regional A350s/ 787s. The change to the three BNE routes was necessary to compete with Qantas after they finally got a decent product in response to the developments at Virgin Australia. It did result in a reduction in capacity. I think it was a temporary move until bigger aircraft with more capacity become available.

Predictions
ULR flights
Daily ULR SFO
Daily ULR EWR
Daily ULR LAX
3/4 * weekly ULR BOS / IAD
Potential A350 flight to YVR / SEA (capacity that is freed up from SFO direct / BNE)

One stop
Existing LAX via NRT continues but goes A380
Existing JFK via FRA continues on 777-300ER
Existing SFO via HKG continues on 777-300ER
Possible MAN increase to daily with IAH reduced to 4 * weekly and a new 3 * weekly to BOS / IAD
New ORD flight via ICN beings (there are 5 direct flights from ICN to LAX at the moment but only 2 to ORD. It’s possible this could be on a A350 instead (one freed up from the SFO direct flight or sourced from the BNE flights)

[vasqflyer]

believed few of these 773s are 15 years old already and keeping them for another few years would mean that SIA will be flying its oldest passenger planes in its history. This contrast to the days when SIA "retires" its planes in 10 to 12 years old and boasts the youngest average fleet.

I think this is the new reality. Aircraft have longer useful lives now and even 20 years will be less than the 30 to be expected at some US airlines. Tax treatments have changes across the world too so that the assets are depreciated over a longer period.

[Dobbo]

Predictions

One stop
Possible MAN increase to daily with IAH reduced to 4 * weekly and a new 3 * weekly to BOS / IAD

Apologies for focusing on MAN and not the rest of your interesting post - my excuse it is my local...

The MAN market is the third largest Europe - Australasian market (after LHR and CDG). With that in mind, I think one of the better things SQ could do is get an evening departure from MAN which would also connect to the bank of evening departures ex SIN to (principally) SYD, MEL/WEL, BNE, ADL, AKL, & CHC, which of course arrive in the morning (local time) and is therefore an attractive option.

So - could SQ schedule a transit flight to the North America over MAN where an evening departure MAN-SIN and where the timing would work well on all sectors? I'm not sure I can see an opportunity for this.

I suspect South America works best operationally, but I'm not convinced MAN would be the best commercial option for SQ - should it be minded to re-enter South America. It would be the only operator on such a route, and it may collect a good chunk of connecting traffic from Northern Europe (including Germany and Benelux), the UK and Scandinavia, but whether it is a better bet than BCN for example, I'm not so sure.

[FN-GM]

The MAN market is the third largest Europe - Australasian market (after LHR and CDG). With that in mind, I think one of the better things SQ could do is get an evening departure from MAN which would also connect to the bank of evening departures ex SIN to (principally) SYD, MEL/WEL, BNE, ADL, AKL, & CHC, which of course arrive in the morning (local time) and is therefore an attractive option.

When flying from the UK landing in Australia in the morning would be a disaster for let lag. My main flying is between MAN and BNE I originally chose SQ back in 2007 for the timings of the flights.

[SQ228]

When flying from the UK landing in Australia in the morning would be a disaster for let lag. My main flying is between MAN and BNE I originally chose SQ back in 2007 for the timings of the flights.

Heading to and from Europe makes up 90% of my flying, and in the westerly direction, I'm very much happy with SQ's standard timing of an afternoon departure out of MEL, flying through the night for a dawn arrival. I did a flight once using SQ326 and the 23 hour long day was gruelling.

On return heading east I usually end up with the late morning departure, dawn in SIN and the day flight home. To adjust to the new time zone, you have to get yourself to sleep at about 1400, approx. 3 hours after departing Europe- no easy task. I tried the other timing a few times using SQ325 leaving at night with a second night in the air between SIN and MEL and I get a good sleep after departing Europe at least, so I'm 50/50 on the two options.

Of course this is coming from someone who has been known to sleep 8 hours uninterrupted in Y...

[FN-GM]

I always find jet lag harder going from West to East. East to West always seems better no matter what routing or sleeping pattern.

When going from MAN > BNE (via SIN) I stay awake until I get on the BNE flight. Right away I sleep for a few hours (power nap) and they stay awake until landing. When I get in I then go straight to bed.

Going back BNE > MAN (via SIN) I get the afternoon BNE flight stay awake for that flight. and then sleep for 9 hours on SQ52. I am then ok for the day in MAN.

This method seems to work best for me.

[SQ228]

I always find jet lag harder going from West to East. East to West always seems better no matter what routing or sleeping pattern.

When going from MAN > BNE (via SIN) I stay awake until I get on the BNE flight. Right away I sleep for a few hours (power nap) and they stay awake until landing. When I get in I then go straight to bed.

Going back BNE > MAN (via SIN) I get the afternoon BNE flight stay awake for that flight. and then sleep for 9 hours on SQ52. I am then ok for the day in MAN.

This method seems to work best for me.

Absolutely agree east is worse than west. Anyone booking a RTW ticket should always circle west! I've never once slept during the day on arriving in Europe of a morning.

I think there is merit in offering an evening departure as Dobbo suggests, but the SQ methodology is always making the first flight daily and then adding a second timing after that and I can't see that changing.

Just to imagine, if the second timing was combined with an added US leg, the flight heading over from MAN to the US port would have to be red-eye in order to turn around and arrive in MAN at night, would it not? And if this is so, either the arrival into MAN from SIN would need to be very late at night, or the arrival into the US brutally early?

The risk is ending up with the mess that BCN was in back in the days of GRU with some days offering 2 departures to SIN timed close together with other days having no departure at all.