SQ B777 withdrawal thread

[ell3]

Based on SQ’s flight schedules,
In May 2020, 772s will still be operating
SQ890/891
SQ868/857
SQ247/248
That counts as 3 aircraft required, while they’re slated to keep only 2 going into the next FY.
Also wondering which aircraft will replace 772 on the WLG route?

[SQ228]

Based on SQ’s flight schedules,
In May 2020, 772s will still be operating
SQ890/891
SQ868/857
SQ247/248
That counts as 3 aircraft required, while they’re slated to keep only 2 going into the next FY.
Also wondering which aircraft will replace 772 on the WLG route?

Unfortunately flight schedules 9 months away haven't been a good prediction in the past as SQ tends to leave the current aircraft in place until they are ready to make an announcement. Especially so with routes like WLG, where it's the only plane type they get and its a very small market. They don't regard shuffling aircraft on regional routes with several flights a day as big a deal.

My guess on WLG is the A350 regional, but it could also go long haul or alternately 787. I have doubts about the long haul because I think the 5 they are adding will cover IST, CPH & SEA plus heavy maintenance cycles as they age, but not much else. While PEY might be popular on the WLG route, I'm not sure the balance of J seats in the long haul configuration would be right for the route.

SQ868/857 wouldn't be a bad prediction of one of the last 772 assignments though. A 9 hour layover for a new regional aircraft is rather wasteful, but then again, SQ918/5 was often chosen for old 772s in the past for the same reason and yet it was one of the earlier 787 assignments.

[ell3]

Unfortunately flight schedules 9 months away haven't been a good prediction in the past as SQ tends to leave the current aircraft in place until they are ready to make an announcement. Especially so with routes like WLG, where it's the only plane type they get and its a very small market. They don't regard shuffling aircraft on regional routes with several flights a day as big a deal.

My guess on WLG is the A350 regional, but it could also go long haul or alternately 787. I have doubts about the long haul because I think the 5 they are adding will cover IST, CPH & SEA plus heavy maintenance cycles as they age, but not much else. While PEY might be popular on the WLG route, I'm not sure the balance of J seats in the long haul configuration would be right for the route.

SQ868/857 wouldn't be a bad prediction of one of the last 772 assignments though. A 9 hour layover for a new regional aircraft is rather wasteful, but then again, SQ918/5 was often chosen for old 772s in the past for the same reason and yet it was one of the earlier 787 assignments.

For WLG I think it’s again back to the question of aircraft performance ability given runway limitations. But i agree the A359R seems the best fit. I’m not sure a 78X can do WLG unless they half fill the aircraft.

[SQ228]

For WLG I think it’s again back to the question of aircraft performance ability given runway limitations. But i agree the A359R seems the best fit. I’m not sure a 78X can do WLG unless they half fill the aircraft.

Is that because the weight of the extra passengers on the 78X is too much for the shorter runway?

[Trent1000]

Is that because the weight of the extra passengers on the 78X is too much for the shorter runway?

Is that because the weight of the extra passengers on the 78X is too much for the shorter runway?

I think it is the way the aircraft was designed which affects take off performance.

WLG runway is only about 6000ft long, and from Boeing's documents, this reduces the 787-10 max take-off weight (MTOW) to only about 410k lb from a max of 560k lb.

Supposing that the plane is carrying a full load, all the weight penalty must come from carrying less fuel. Roughly translating a 150k lb penalty equates
to about two-thirds of 787-10 fuel capacity. The actual penalty may be more severe than this with other considerations.

Not completely sure if 787-10 can make WLG-MEL with a one-third tank. Carrying less pax is a likely possibility.

According to Airbus charts, the A350 can lift almost 500k lb with a 6,000 ft runway. For the A350R, it suffers only a 50k lb penalty which is about 20% of its fuel capacity. Given that both aircraft weigh about the same when empty, the A350(R) has obvious superior performance compared to the dreamliner in short runway situations like WLG.

[SQ228]

I think it is the way the aircraft was designed which affects take off performance.

WLG runway is only about 6000ft long, and from Boeing's documents, this reduces the 787-10 max take-off weight (MTOW) to only about 410k lb from a max of 560k lb.

Supposing that the plane is carrying a full load, all the weight penalty must come from carrying less fuel. Roughly translating a 150k lb penalty equates
to about two-thirds of 787-10 fuel capacity. The actual penalty may be more severe than this with other considerations.

Not completely sure if 787-10 can make WLG-MEL with a one-third tank. Carrying less pax is a likely possibility.

According to Airbus charts, the A350 can lift almost 500k lb with a 6,000 ft runway. For the A350R, it suffers only a 50k lb penalty which is about 20% of its fuel capacity. Given that both aircraft weigh about the same when empty, the A350(R) has obvious superior performance compared to the dreamliner in short runway situations like WLG.

Very informative, thank you!

Any benefit of the extra passenger capacity of the 787 would be completely lost it would then seem. Fairly much guarantees we'll see an A350 on the route in the future.

[flyguy]

Not sure if this is accurate - "Not completely sure if 787-10 can make WLG-MEL with a one-third tank. Carrying less pax is a likely possibility."
As WLG to MEL is about 5 hours, the 787 need not carry its full fuel which it can fly for at east 9 hours. But from WLG to MEL, do doubt the pax load can be even over 300 pax.

[ell3]

Don’t forget SQ will have 737Max in the near future... seems quite a suitable aircraft to use given the loads in/out of WLG!

(Can 737Max8 do the distance from SIN-MEL? Hahah)

[davidfusq]

Don’t forget SQ will have 737Max in the near future... seems quite a suitable aircraft to use given the loads in/out of WLG!

(Can 737Max8 do the distance from SIN-MEL? Hahah)

SIN-MEL is within the range of A321XLR. I read and hear a lot of this route being mentioned by Airbus and aviation analysts and perhaps also Qantas Group. Could this possibly the plan for Jetstar to operate daily A321XLR on SIN-MEL route once it enters the Qantas group fleet? Currently Jetstar is only operating less than 3 weekly B788 frequency due to shortage of equipment.

[SQ228]

If WLG loads are so bad, why would they be increasing to 5x weekly?

[flyguy]

Its still not a daily flight - but it could be more so because the continuing MEL-SIN is flight have good loads as even the 4 daily SIN-MEL-SIN route have always a very high pax load.

[Bitterroot]

Based on SQ’s flight schedules,
In May 2020, 772s will still be operating
SQ890/891
SQ868/857
SQ247/248
That counts as 3 aircraft required, while they’re slated to keep only 2 going into the next FY.
Also wondering which aircraft will replace 772 on the WLG route?

If the GDS is to be believed, that set of rotations will be impossible after 31 March: GDS shows 772 regional configuration inventory for all three rotations (no sign of any 772ER) -- and the announced retirement schedule would only have a single regional 772 by then. Have to be no more than placeholder assignments at this point.

[wlgspotter]

Don’t forget SQ will have 737Max in the near future... seems quite a suitable aircraft to use given the loads in/out of WLG!

(Can 737Max8 do the distance from SIN-MEL? Hahah)

If WLG loads are so bad, why would they be increasing to 5x weekly?

SQ's 772 in WLG is a sight to behold - SQ is the only scheduled airline that operates regular widebody aircraft into WLG. You too see a lot of SQ's 772 featured in WLG's promotional material. I think should SQ decide to deploy a narrowbody on the WLG-MEL route, then it really wouldn't differ very much from the competition, i.e. NZ and QF, and I think they would/could loose their competitive edge against the likes of QF and NZ. Whilst I don't live in WLG anymore, I sure hope that SQ keeps to a widebody on the route...

[qantas_flyer]

SQ's 772 in WLG is a sight to behold - SQ is the only scheduled airline that operates regular widebody aircraft into WLG. You too see a lot of SQ's 772 featured in WLG's promotional material. I think should SQ decide to deploy a narrowbody on the WLG-MEL route, then it really wouldn't differ very much from the competition, i.e. NZ and QF, and I think they would/could loose their competitive edge against the likes of QF and NZ. Whilst I don't live in WLG anymore, I sure hope that SQ keeps to a widebody on the route...

Very true. That is the selling point... it's a wide body AND it's Singapore Airlines... 'a great way to fly.' My understanding is that loads had increased and while the product is a little dated, the service is fantastic and it's on a Boeing 777. If it went to a narrow body, what's the difference with Air New Zealand, Qantas or Virgin? All three offer excellent connections from points in Australia. BUT none are on a wide body.

Singapore Airlines' move from Canberra to Melbourne was excellent. It put more people on the plane and Melbourne is a far more attractive destination than Canberra and I think compliments Wellington nicely. Both are great cities and have a uniqueness about them.

We must remember too the Air New Zealand co-operates on the Wellington - Melbourne route with Singapore Airlines so I am thinking the wide body jet is part of the route make up for all involved.

[oliverdave]

9V-SVN hasn’t flown for 6 days now. 9V-SRO & 9V-SQL haven’t flown for 2 days although it could just be maintenance.