SQTalk  

Go Back   SQTalk > Singapore Airlines > All About Singapore Airlines

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 19th March 2019, 07:00 PM   #181
Jumbojet Lover
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Jumbojet Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: 26-Dec-2009
Programs: Krisflyer, TrueBlue, Flying Blue, AAdvantage
Posts: 524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuuka_miya View Post
LAX is again up for Spontaneous Escapes - it makes me wonder whether 10x weekly on the ULR is too much capacity especially given PE fares are still pretty low. Could one flight go to the regular A350 with blocking seats?

I seem to remember United dropped it because their bookings were quite bad.
I don't know if bookings were quite bad but it was apparently not economically feasible due to the high number of blocked seats to make the flight work on the 787-9 from LAX.

It's possible that SQ's 10x weekly capacity is necessary for Business but PE isn't full so they're chasing additional revenue.
Jumbojet Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2019, 09:19 AM   #182
flyguy
SQTalk Solitaire PPS
 
Join Date: 21-Dec-2006
Posts: 1,469
Default

fairly sure its economically feasible to use a A350ER do its SIN-LAX-SIN nonstop flights even with the LAX-SIN sector bocking some seats. As the A350ER is a 253 seater aircraft whilst the ULR has only 161 seats. Even if the A350 long haul flies with 220 pax from its 253 pax capacity, it should be economically feasible to do so. It's even better for the A350ER to do the SIN-SFO non-stop.

Last edited by flyguy; 20th March 2019 at 10:24 AM..
flyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2019, 11:47 AM   #183
Jumbojet Lover
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Jumbojet Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: 26-Dec-2009
Programs: Krisflyer, TrueBlue, Flying Blue, AAdvantage
Posts: 524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy View Post
fairly sure its economically feasible to use a A350ER do its SIN-LAX-SIN nonstop flights even with the LAX-SIN sector bocking some seats. As the A350ER is a 253 seater aircraft whilst the ULR has only 161 seats. Even if the A350 long haul flies with 220 pax from its 253 pax capacity, it should be economically feasible to do so. It's even better for the A350ER to do the SIN-SFO non-stop.
Is there a new A350 variant with the 'ER' designation? It's not just a reduction of capacity to fly further, but also the fact that the A350-900ULR has a specially configured fuel system built into the aircraft that extends the range.

Plus you've overlooked the Business Class (J) side of the equation. The ULR configured aircraft has 67 J seats while the standard long-haul A350-900 only has 42. Assume for a second your 'A350ER' can make LAX-SIN with blocked seats in Economy, you're still missing out on potentially 25 high-yielding J seats.
Jumbojet Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2019, 12:14 PM   #184
flyguy
SQTalk Solitaire PPS
 
Join Date: 21-Dec-2006
Posts: 1,469
Default

The A350ER i refered to is actually the A350-900 which some do refer it a ER version. Yes altho the ULR has 25 more J seats but not sure of the average load factor and the PEY behind on the ULR is reportedly hard to sell then overall its also not good.
flyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th March 2019, 12:55 PM   #185
yuuka_miya
SQTalker
 
Join Date: 22-Nov-2018
Posts: 24
Default

I guess someone with expertflyer access may be able to provide a definite answer, but having to price J class on SQ36 for Spontaneous Escapes back in Feb doesn't sound very good to me in that cabin either...

If the standard A350 can make LAX while eating the seat blocking penalty, then maybe a 3x weekly ORD or something might be a better use of a ULR frame.
yuuka_miya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2019, 09:29 AM   #186
flyguy
SQTalk Solitaire PPS
 
Join Date: 21-Dec-2006
Posts: 1,469
Default

And think for SIN-SFO-SIN, SIA could have use its A359 as its within its range and free up the 350ULR for longer new routes. The PEY fares to US now is only marginally a tad higher than ey fares only.
flyguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2019, 10:40 AM   #187
Jumbojet Lover
SQTalk PPS Club
 
Jumbojet Lover's Avatar
 
Join Date: 26-Dec-2009
Programs: Krisflyer, TrueBlue, Flying Blue, AAdvantage
Posts: 524
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy View Post
The A350ER i refered to is actually the A350-900 which some do refer it a ER version. Yes altho the ULR has 25 more J seats but not sure of the average load factor and the PEY behind on the ULR is reportedly hard to sell then overall its also not good.
Are you sure you're not referring to the 777-300ER? It's not like the baseline A350 version has less range and there's an "Extended Range" version. Besides, "ER" is Boeing nomenclature for longer range versions of the 747, 777, 767 for example; Airbus would never use it. Anyway I work in aviation and I can assure you no one refers to the A350 as A350ER.

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy View Post
And think for SIN-SFO-SIN, SIA could have use its A359 as its within its range and free up the 350ULR for longer new routes. The PEY fares to US now is only marginally a tad higher than ey fares only.
I think new routes present higher risk for SQ, especially for ultra-long haul, so they're playing safe with established markets for now. They'd have to discount even more as a new entrant to whichever market they start. As much as I would have loved to see SQ fly the ULR to Toronto and Chicago, it would surprise me if they did just that.
Jumbojet Lover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2019, 11:26 AM   #188
ycp81
SQTalk Life Solitaire PPS
 
ycp81's Avatar
 
Join Date: 01-Apr-2007
Location: Singapore
Programs: Krisflyer, Qantas Frequent Flyer, Flying Blue, Enrich
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by flyguy View Post
The A350ER i refered to is actually the A350-900 which some do refer it a ER version. Yes altho the ULR has 25 more J seats but not sure of the average load factor and the PEY behind on the ULR is reportedly hard to sell then overall its also not good.
SQ is using the base A359 version. There is a new A359HGW version which is used currently by Philippines Airlines on MNL-JFK non-stop The HGW version has slight payload improvements over the base version, but not as much range as the ULR. If SQ uses the HGW version with existing base version layout, there will be less/no restrictions in operating sin-lax vv non-stop with full pax load.
ycp81 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2019, 10:01 PM   #189
Unionruler
SQTalk Elite Silver
 
Join Date: 11-Apr-2014
Location: Singapore
Programs: KFEG, AA Platinum
Posts: 76
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuuka_miya View Post
If the standard A350 can make LAX while eating the seat blocking penalty, then maybe a 3x weekly ORD or something might be a better use of a ULR frame.
I'm very sure SQ actually took 7 frames with the intention of restarting ORD and/or YYZ. And then UA and/or AC simply stonewalled their approach for codeshares.

3x weekly doesn't work when you want business traffic, but 5x weekly may not either on pure O&D.
Unionruler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st March 2019, 10:59 PM   #190
Trent1000
SQTalk Elite Silver
 
Join Date: 27-May-2017
Posts: 68
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ycp81 View Post
SQ is using the base A359 version. There is a new A359HGW version which is used currently by Philippines Airlines on MNL-JFK non-stop The HGW version has slight payload improvements over the base version, but not as much range as the ULR. If SQ uses the HGW version with existing base version layout, there will be less/no restrictions in operating sin-lax vv non-stop with full pax load.
https://centreforaviation.com/analys...ustomer-431110

SQ is using the 275t version for the regular long range A350. There is a base 268t which was the earliest version. The distance between LAX and SFO is less than 300nm, so the 350nm increase in range for the 280t vs the 275t version will more than cover that. But I am not sure they want to. They increased flights to SFO with the ULR when the usual A350 could do it quite comfortably. This could indicate that the demand is at the front of the cabin?
Trent1000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +8. The time now is 10:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Techadmin: Luke | Hosting: www.lomag.net