Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A380/77W: route and equipment rumours

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by zvezda View Post
    Even after adding SIN-FRA and vv. SQ25/26 to the list, I am skeptical about the omission of SQ308/319 (LHR).
    You've mentioned SQ308/319 a few times. Why would SQ upgauge that flight, particularly in preference to FRA or AKL? Even when LHR was 3x 744, SQ308/319 was always the "empty flight" with plenty of availability at lower fare buckets and for redemptions in all classes. It doesn't really connect with anything useful - 319 with a small handful of SE Asian flights, and 308 with the handful of overnights from Aus/NZ. In fact, I always used to deliberately choose 319 in 744 days, and never had anyone seated next to me in Y

    Surely 308/319 stays 77W at best?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by kt74 View Post
      You've mentioned SQ308/319 a few times. Why would SQ upgauge that flight, particularly in preference to FRA or AKL? Even when LHR was 3x 744, SQ308/319 was always the "empty flight" with plenty of availability at lower fare buckets and for redemptions in all classes. It doesn't really connect with anything useful - 319 with a small handful of SE Asian flights, and 308 with the handful of overnights from Aus/NZ. In fact, I always used to deliberately choose 319 in 744 days, and never had anyone seated next to me in Y

      Surely 308/319 stays 77W at best?
      SQ made public statements years ago that LHR would go to 3x daily WhaleJet service.

      Comment


      • #18
        Will there be overcapacity on the SIN-LHR route with Qantas also starting 2x daily A380 services by early next year?
        My past and future travels

        My Travel Map

        Comment


        • #19
          [QUOTE=SMK77;131448

          FRA? I am missing FRA on the list... Thought they are thinking of dropping FRA-JFK and upgauge to A380...

          [/QUOTE]

          *A partners have an "agreement" to send the A380 to each others hub on an equal base. So in this case it means that SQ won't send their A380 to FRA as long LH don't send theirs A380 to SIN. It will happen in the future but at this moment LH doesn't have A380 to send to SIN.

          Comment


          • #20
            They've been talking about dropping the FRA-JFK leg since Jesus was a lad...

            Comment


            • #21
              A one-way RTW seems odd to me, though from a timing point of view, SIN-FRA-JFK-TPE-SIN fits nicely (daytime flight SIN-FRA, early morning TPE-SIN). The return leg of that (SIN-TPE-JFK-FRA-SIN) has the "issue" that the FRA-SIN leg is a noon departure, same as the A388 flight from FRA (unless capacity allows for an A380 and a 777 to fly behind each other).

              One routing that would work however is
              388 SIN-FRA & back
              77W SIN-FRA & back
              77W SIN-TPE-JFK-FRA & back

              HOWEVER, I wonder if TPE-JFK is economical for SQ. I dont know why they pulled TPE-LAX but certainly not because they made too much profit on that flight. If it doesn't make money, then it seems a pretty complicated way of keeping FRA-JFK flying. But it is beautiful regardless

              Comment


              • #22
                Considering that Jetstar Asia will be flying SIN-AKL, it probably makes sense to consolidate the 2 daily AKL flights into one A380 flight.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by dmuller View Post
                  A one-way RTW seems odd to me, though from a timing point of view, SIN-FRA-JFK-TPE-SIN fits nicely (daytime flight SIN-FRA, early morning TPE-SIN). The return leg of that (SIN-TPE-JFK-FRA-SIN) has the "issue" that the FRA-SIN leg is a noon departure, same as the A388 flight from FRA (unless capacity allows for an A380 and a 777 to fly behind each other).
                  To maintain the current JFK-FRA-SIN schedule, the TPE-JFK flight would have to arrive not later than 20:00. That means a departure from TPE not later than 17:00. Departure from SIN would be about 10:30 or so. I don't see the problem.
                  Last edited by zvezda; 6 October 2010, 03:23 PM. Reason: typo

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by zvezda View Post
                    To maintain the current JFK-FRA-SIN schedule, the TPE-JFK flight would have to arrive not later than 20:00. That means at departure from TPE not later than 17:00. Departure from SIN would be about 10:30 or so. I don't see the problem.
                    The problem is not SIN-TPE-JFK-FRA, but FRA-SIN sector as the flight time would coincide with the A380 flight and you probably want the A380 to leave FRA around noon. That's why a routing SIN-TPE-JFK-FRA-JFK-TPE-SIN would fit (if allowed)

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by dmuller View Post
                      The problem is not SIN-TPE-JFK-FRA, but FRA-SIN sector as the flight time would coincide with the A380 flight and you probably want the A380 to leave FRA around noon.
                      I see your point. However, it might be better to have the JFK-FRA flight operated by the 777-300ER connect to the noon FRA-SIN flight operated by the WhaleJet. Then the 777-300ER could sit in Frankfurt for several hours and depart at 17:00 to arrive at noon in SIN.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by MAN Flyer View Post
                        They've been talking about dropping the FRA-JFK leg since Jesus was a lad...
                        and if I'm not wrong, at that stage, being PPS was valuable....
                        There's only One way to fly.... SINGAPORE AIRLINES!
                        If SQ is too expensive, the other way to fly is Qatar Airways

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by zvezda View Post
                          I see your point. However, it might be better to have the JFK-FRA flight operated by the 777-300ER connect to the noon FRA-SIN flight operated by the WhaleJet. Then the 777-300ER could sit in Frankfurt for several hours and depart at 17:00 to arrive at noon in SIN.
                          +1!!!
                          There's only One way to fly.... SINGAPORE AIRLINES!
                          If SQ is too expensive, the other way to fly is Qatar Airways

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            What's the first date the A380 could fly SIN-FRA?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by SMK77 View Post
                              What's the first date the A380 could fly SIN-FRA?
                              I'm not sure I understand your question. LH, QF, or SQ could do so tomorrow.

                              If you mean when will SQ take delivery of more WhaleJets to be able to add the route on a daily basis without dropping any of the existing routes, then about March, April, or May of 2011.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Nick C View Post
                                IMHO, FRA shld be 21x like LHR
                                I previously advocated 3x daily SIN-FRA service using 777-300ERs with one continuing to JFK. Recently, I've been thinking more about this. In my opinion, SQ would do better to add new new nonstop service to destinations that have Star Alliance hubs like BRU and VIE. I know SQ tried both BRU and VIE back in the 1990s, but now they can let their Star Alliance partners sell code-share tickets and provide some feed. If SQ can fill a WhaleJet to ZRH, they can fill a 777-200ER or A350-900 to VIE.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X