A350 Deliveries and Routes

[FN-GM]

I could be wrong but I assume that it’s a paper derate to save on landing fees?

MAN landing fees won't be as high as other destinations.

All those destinations seem to be some of the furthest destinations. One time MAN used to be longest flight.

[9V-SML]

If it truly is to save on overall landing fees, then deploying the higher MTOW variants on long haul flights make sense over deploying the medium haul ones (they would make fewer landings over the same period of time, hence incurring lower fees regardless of the airports they land at).

[SQ957]

The MTOW-268T A350s apparently do not get deployed to SFO, MAN, AMS, BCN and MXP.

9V-SMA to 9V-SME, 9V-SMG, 9V-SMJ and 9V-SMM.

The rest are MTOW-275T.

It would be odd that they do not get deployed to MXP or AMS for lack of range, especially since these aircraft fly a lot to DUS, which is very close to AMS and certainly much further than MXP is.

[SQ228]

It would be odd that they do not get deployed to MXP or AMS for lack of range, especially since these aircraft fly a lot to DUS, which is very close to AMS and certainly much further than MXP is.

This was my thought precisely. In the early days of the A350s, when all they had was SMA-C, they covered AMS & DUS exclusively.

[Bitterroot]

The MTOW-268T A350s apparently do not get deployed to SFO, MAN, AMS, BCN and MXP.

9V-SMA to 9V-SME, 9V-SMG, 9V-SMJ and 9V-SMM.

The rest are MTOW-275T.

I can confirm that SFO -- and now, SEA -- only see the 275T version long haul A359s. 9V-SMK is the lowest alpha-suffix that's ever been to SFO; almost always a frame from the SMO -- SMY group.

Also, no instance of any 268T A359's performing service to MAN/IAH, AMS, BCN, or MXP over the last 30 days....

[pokfur]

From my understanding, A350-900s were originally certified for 268T MTOW, so it makes sense that the earlier birds SMA-E were of this variant. Later on it seems like Airbus was able to increase the MTOW, so it is also logical that later-built frames have the higher 275T MTOW. What is strange is why randomly 9V-SMG, 9V-SMJ and 9V-SMM have the lower MTOW? Is it because they had already gone into production before the higher MTOW variants became available?

As for the restriction for certain frames to certain routes, I think it's a combination of both range and landing fees. Obviously the longest routes like SFO and SEA will need the range, hence they get the higher MTOW birds. But perhaps the lower MTOW ones are purposely restricted to routes that incur higher landing fees.

I guess the A350 fleet is large enough for SQ to operate them as sub fleets, maximizing cost savings wherever possible.

[yuuka_miya]

Further to SQKevin's post #2485, the Airbus Production List (https://aibfamily.flights) has been updated as of 25 April to show many more aircraft on the list. Of possible interest to SQTalkers are the following (tentative registration followed by MSN in parentheses):

behind 9V-SHG (309) and -SHH (316) are to come:
SHI (322)
SHJ (328)

SMV (329)
SMW (341)
SMY (344)
SMZ (348)

SJA (360) no idea what this prospective registration means. Maybe SQKevin can clarify?

SHK (369)
SHL (371)
SHM (379)
SHN (385)

So -- two regionals, then four more long hauls, then a sleeper, then four more regionals. Or?

Next MSNs - 394 (we could see this one soon), 436, 439, 445, 447, 460. No SQ registrations listed on aibfamily.flights.

[9V-JKL]

The MTOW-268T A350s apparently do not get deployed to SFO, MAN, AMS, BCN and MXP.

9V-SMA to 9V-SME, 9V-SMG, 9V-SMJ and 9V-SMM.

The rest are MTOW-275T.

Interesting info.
Quick search using picture search on A.Net and we've seen photos of
9V-SMD, J & M in SFO
9V-SMA, B, C, D, E, G, J, M in MAN

[9V-SPL]

Interesting info.
Quick search using picture search on A.Net and we've seen photos of
9V-SMD, J & M in SFO
9V-SMA, B, C, D, E, G, J, M in MAN

anymore*.

At some point, they stopped operating the 268T A359s to those destinations. Not necessarily for a lack of range, but perhaps to save on landing fees as others have suggested.

Some interesting related articles/discussion:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1423349

In all cases the different weight variants are paper changes to an identical airframe making later in-service weight variant changes possible.

So why would an airline change to a different weight variant later in the aircraft’s life? Aircraft price and underway navigation and landing fees are based on the aircraft’s MTOW. To buy just the weight variant necessary to do the job is a way to save operational costs for the airlines. If operational conditions later change, it is a bonus to be able to adapt the aircraft.

https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/ai...-range-8100nm/

[9V-SPL]

9V-SGB operated SQ116/117|07OCT (SIN-KUL-SIN) today.

[MainlyMiles]

9V-SGB operated SQ116/117|07OCT (SIN-KUL-SIN) today.

First time a ULR has flown a commercial flight which wasn’t LAX/SFO/EWR since they joined the fleet. Was bound to happen eventually.

[flyguy]

Usually 116/117 load is always full or close to full and using the ULR is way too low seats. More likely it was a last min change of aircraft and there wasnt a standard regional aircraft. However SIA in the past have used the A340 on its lucrative SIN-JKT-SIN route as the A340s were available in between the US flights.

[9V-JKL]

Some interesting related articles/discussion:

https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1423349



https://leehamnews.com/2016/03/30/ai...-range-8100nm/

Good links! Thanks!

[Heihei]

9V-SGB operated SQ116/117|07OCT (SIN-KUL-SIN) today.

Because SGB had to perform one non-ETOPS flight after an engine charge

[flyguy]

Thought after an engine change, they can just do a engine run test on the static aircraft to see that there's no vibration or any issues, and if necessary then to do a test flight only and not necessary do a scheduled short flight, and surprisingly SGB need an engine change as is still fairly new.