SQTalk  

Go Back   SQTalk > Singapore Airlines > All About Singapore Airlines

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 17th August 2019, 03:26 PM   #1
9V-JKL
SQTalk Life Solitaire PPS LPP2
 
9V-JKL's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-Nov-2006
Posts: 4,513
Default The Air Cargo Carrying Potential of The A359 & B789

https://content.sciendo.com/download...ticle-p301.xml

A very good "geeky" read comparing the A359 & B789 on the SIN-SFO route bet SQ & UA.
9V-JKL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2019, 03:28 PM   #2
9V-JKL
SQTalk Life Solitaire PPS LPP2
 
9V-JKL's Avatar
 
Join Date: 03-Nov-2006
Posts: 4,513
Default

TL; DR

Quote:
"As can be seen, the payload potential of the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB aircraft is always slightly greater than the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 aircraft, particularly when there are no prevailing wind penalties.Specifically, the Singapore Airlines Airbus 350-900XWB on average offers 5.5 tonnes more than United Airlines Boeing 787-9. Based on the current air cargo proxy yield ($0.375/tonne/km)(Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2016), and the distance (13,596.09 km) then there could be an additional $27,900 in revenue potential when the aircraft operates daily services. This equates to an annual revenue potential of $USD 20.3 million."

furthermore they say

The introduction of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft have enabled airlines to operate ultra-long-haul (ULR) services. This study has examined the air cargo carrying potential of the Airbus A350-900XWB and the Boeing 787-9 aircraft deployed by Singapore Airlines and United Airlines, respectively. The study focused on the San Francisco (SFO) to Singapore (SIN) and Singapore (SIN) to San Francisco (SFO) air routes. Despite the very long flight stage length of 13,596.09 kilometres both aircraft types offer a meaningful air cargo payload. If the flights are not impacted by any prevailing winds, then Singapore Airlines Airbus A350-900XWB potentially offers an air cargo payload of 14.7 tonnes and United Airlines Boeing 787-9 a payload of 12.8 tonnes.

If we consider the available air cargo capacity when there is the maximum passenger compliment on board, the difference between the A350-900XWB in Singapore Airlines cabin configuration and the United Airlines Boeing 787-9 is 5.3 tonnes (in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB), which increases slightly to 5.4 tonnes in the east bound direction and reduced slightly to 5.2 tonnes in the west bound direct.However, if we utilise the typical load factors of each airline, the difference becomes 5.6 tonnes in favour of the Airbus A350-900XWB aircraft, which increases to 5.7 tonnes in the east bound direction (and remains at 5.6 tonnes in the west bound direction)."
9V-JKL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2019, 03:51 PM   #3
yuuka_miya
SQTalk Elite Gold
 
Join Date: 22-Nov-2018
Programs: KF nothing
Posts: 170
Default

I guess it's important to remember that UA has 2 daily flights while SQ only has 1, not counting the ULR flight since the forward cargo hold is deactivated and the rear is likely used for luggage only. UA's capacity may also change following the 789 Polaris refit, where pax capacity goes from 48J/88Y+/116Y to 48J/21W/39E+/149Y for a total increase of 5.

Although I'd be more interested in a comparison on SIN-LAX, and whether SQ is leaving money on the table by using a ULR instead of a 3-class A359 with more freight capacity. For one, SQ35/36 are up for Spontaneous Escapes again...
__________________
an infrastructure geek
yuuka_miya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2019, 06:25 PM   #4
9V-SML
SQTalk Elite Silver
 
Join Date: 14-Aug-2017
Location: Singapore
Programs: SQ *G, BA Silver
Posts: 60
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuuka_miya View Post
I guess it's important to remember that UA has 2 daily flights while SQ only has 1, not counting the ULR flight since the forward cargo hold is deactivated and the rear is likely used for luggage only. UA's capacity may also change following the 789 Polaris refit, where pax capacity goes from 48J/88Y+/116Y to 48J/21W/39E+/149Y for a total increase of 5.

Although I'd be more interested in a comparison on SIN-LAX, and whether SQ is leaving money on the table by using a ULR instead of a 3-class A359 with more freight capacity. For one, SQ35/36 are up for Spontaneous Escapes again...
Referring to the lack of an SQ A359 in long haul config plying SIN-LAX non-stop, is it due to the lack of range if it is carrying a full passenger payload? Wondering how UA can do it on the B789 with seemingly little or no passenger load restrictions, while SQ isnít doing it with the A359.
9V-SML is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th August 2019, 07:30 PM   #5
yuuka_miya
SQTalk Elite Gold
 
Join Date: 22-Nov-2018
Programs: KF nothing
Posts: 170
Default

Apparently UA has plenty of load restrictions when winds are stronger in the winter, I seem to recall a UA guy on a.net saying they were blocking 40 seats or something like that.

So I guess either SQ thinks it's not worth taking a 20-30 seat hit, or that they want to, but don't have enough 3-class A359s given that LAX was planned as a ULR destination at the time of the orders. Kind of makes me wonder, if J demand out of LAX is that high, whether putting the A380 back on SQ11/12 and terminating SQ35/36 could work too.
__________________
an infrastructure geek
yuuka_miya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st August 2019, 10:24 PM   #6
eamond
SQTalk Elite Silver
 
Join Date: 06-Feb-2011
Location: MEL & PVG
Programs: SQ, OZ, UA, DL, QF
Posts: 73
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yuuka_miya View Post
Apparently UA has plenty of load restrictions when winds are stronger in the winter, I seem to recall a UA guy on a.net saying they were blocking 40 seats or something like that.

So I guess either SQ thinks it's not worth taking a 20-30 seat hit, or that they want to, but don't have enough 3-class A359s given that LAX was planned as a ULR destination at the time of the orders. Kind of makes me wonder, if J demand out of LAX is that high, whether putting the A380 back on SQ11/12 and terminating SQ35/36 could work too.
Thought Jayunited on A.net said it was like 50 seat during winter and 20-30 seat during summer...

UA thought they could get away with SFO as SFO don't normally have restrictions during summer and more like 20 seat during winter.

Mind you that the newer generation composite planes while flying greater range has a greater penalty as they're stretching to their limit.

Cheers,
Michael
eamond 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 11:58 PM.


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