Singapore Airlines to launch SIN-CGK-SYD and increase SIN-CGK

[Metropolitan Airlines]

I just wondering is the demand for flights to Sydney that huge that justifies 6x Daily non-stop?

I think SIN-SYD is now even more frequent than SYD-PER!

[9V-SPL]

Singapore Airlines to cut 5 weekly flights to Jakarta from Dec 1

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/...html?cid=fbcna

"The five weekly flights being cut are SQ962 and SQ963 on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays."

[SQ228]

I just wondering is the demand for flights to Sydney that huge that justifies 6x Daily non-stop?

I think SIN-SYD is now even more frequent than SYD-PER!

Any flight they throw at MEL fills, so I imagine SYD would be similar. I just don't know how they manage to get all the extra landing slots at such a congested, curfewed airport as SYD. I thought this was the whole reason they invented the A380...

I've heard the SIN-CBR leg is doing very well, so there's definitely plenty of demand still from SE Australia. SQ has an exceptional reputation among all people I talk to, which is why I'm particularly concerned they get worn out old products off our flights. It only takes one bad experience for occasional flyers to make them think again and tell everyone they know.

[SQfanatic]

Any flight they throw at MEL fills, so I imagine SYD would be similar. I just don't know how they manage to get all the extra landing slots at such a congested, curfewed airport as SYD. I thought this was the whole reason they invented the A380...

I've heard the SIN-CBR leg is doing very well, so there's definitely plenty of demand still from SE Australia. SQ has an exceptional reputation among all people I talk to, which is why I'm particularly concerned they get worn out old products off our flights. It only takes one bad experience for occasional flyers to make them think again and tell everyone they know.

The Canberra/Wellington route could go A350, or even 77WR since it seems to be doing well. That could sound like a future plan if more A350's come online or more 77W get refitted to 77WR.

If it's really doing that well, they should go for it daily (unless they're waiting for more A350's to be able to make it daily).

[zilchster]

The Canberra/Wellington route could go A350, or even 77WR since it seems to be doing well. That could sound like a future plan if more A350's come online or more 77W get refitted to 77WR.

If it's really doing that well, they should go for it daily (unless they're waiting for more A350's to be able to make it daily).

What's the obsession with the 77WR. Ugh. Apparently I heard there are some runway issues or such which restricts the aircraft type that can be used.

[loldude333]

Yup, WLG's runway is rather short and a landing is usually hairy for a widebody; with full flaps and spoilers and reverse thrust deployed almost til the plane comes to a stop. SQ's 772s which currently serve the route generally use up almost the entire runway for a landing, and that's at minimum landing weight (since the hop from CBR to WLG requires minimal fuel and there are a good number of divert-able airfields in the area). A 77W could technically land there (Air NZ has flown 77Ws in before) but there's very little leeway for a late touchdown.

Takeoff on the other hand shouldn't be a problem; 777s in general and the 77W in particular have very good thrust-to-weight ratios (though this doesn't take into account drag and lift, which also affect takeoff performance majorly). SQs 772s currently require slightly more than 2/3 of the runway (if my estimation is correct) to lift off with minimal load (since they're returning to CBR), so i don't think a 77W will encounter too many problems. In fact, it'd be lovely to be in the vicinity to hear and feel those big bad GE90s at max power.

[SQGamespeed]

Yup, WLG's runway is rather short and a landing is usually hairy for a widebody; with full flaps and spoilers and reverse thrust deployed almost til the plane comes to a stop. SQ's 772s which currently serve the route generally use up almost the entire runway for a landing, and that's at minimum landing weight (since the hop from CBR to WLG requires minimal fuel and there are a good number of divert-able airfields in the area). A 77W could technically land there (Air NZ has flown 77Ws in before) but there's very little leeway for a late touchdown.

Takeoff on the other hand shouldn't be a problem; 777s in general and the 77W in particular have very good thrust-to-weight ratios (though this doesn't take into account drag and lift, which also affect takeoff performance majorly). SQs 772s currently require slightly more than 2/3 of the runway (if my estimation is correct) to lift off with minimal load (since they're returning to CBR), so i don't think a 77W will encounter too many problems. In fact, it'd be lovely to be in the vicinity to hear and feel those big bad GE90s at max power.

QF used to fly 767s to WLG on a daily basis, and even those seemed to use nearly the whole runway, from what I remember seeing. For a while in the 1980s they used to also send 747SPs, so the runway has proven to be capable of handling large aircraft. That said, all widebody flights to WLG through the years may have been weight restricted.

I wonder how the A350 may fare at WLG.

[SQfanatic]

What's the obsession with the 77WR. Ugh. Apparently I heard there are some runway issues or such which restricts the aircraft type that can be used.

You read my mind. Actually I was questioning about WLG's runway length at the time of the post. Anyway, could an A350 work on WLG's runway (I am sure an A333 can because they were initially supposed to at one point but are using the 772).

[loldude333]

From what i heard they eventually went with a 772 due to its better short-field performance on takeoff.

[SQ228]

From what i heard they eventually went with a 772 due to its better short-field performance on takeoff.

Or due to the additional J capacity of the SQ and SR series.

The A350 longhaul matches the seat count for J and reduces the Y which is a good fit for the route, but the flight timings are identical to all the existing/proposed/potential African & Euro routes, so it'll have to join the ever-lengthening A350 queue along with MAN/IAH, MUC, DME, MXP/BCN, CPH, IST, FCO...

[SQfanatic]

Fair enough to me. At the minimal Canberra/Wellington can increase their flight to daily if the route is doing that good.

[ponders]

Is it just me thinking this way?

I feel that permission is withdrawn by Indonesia is more lobbying by "competitors" than actually technical runway issues.

GA themselves mentioned they did not need to reduce flights.

[SQ319]

Is it just me thinking this way?

I feel that permission is withdrawn by Indonesia is more lobbying by "competitors" than actually technical runway issues.

GA themselves mentioned they did not need to reduce flights.

+1 here. Though CGK really needs to do something about that runway.

[SQ228]

SQ need not feel singled out any more. Indonesian authorities have revoked TT's licencing arrangements to fly routes between DPS and Australian cities effective immediately, stranding hundreds of passengers. VA has had to send planes in VA livery to DPS to rescue them. DPS must be having issues with its runway as well...

[SQGamespeed]

SQ need not feel singled out any more. Indonesian authorities have revoked TT's licencing arrangements to fly routes between DPS and Australian cities effective immediately, stranding hundreds of passengers. VA has had to send planes in VA livery to DPS to rescue them. DPS must be having issues with its runway as well...

That's what you get when you build an airport on the narrowest part of the island. There is no more room to expand appparently, so authorities have been reported to build a new airport on the north side of Bali.