24left

QUOTE from Airbus Press Release - April 23 2018

"Singapore Airlines to resume world’s longest commercial flights

The Ultra Long Range version of the A350 XWB, MSN 216, has successfully completed its first flight. The latest variant of the best-selling A350 XWB Family will be able to fly further than any other commercial airliner and will enter service with launch operator Singapore Airlines in second half 2018."


Full press release here

Ultra Long Range A350 XWB completes first flight


You can see the Singapore airlines logo here





Mods - I searched back over a year on the forum for a thread on ULR aircraft. I chose to start this thread as there has been discussion that New York - Singapore will not be the only route where SQ deployed this aircraft. Perhaps this can be the thread for all future discussion.

If there is a better thread, feel free to move/merge. Also feel free to rename the thread title.

shuigao

Whoa, I can't imagine spending 20 hours in economy. Minus 8 hours of sleep -- that's 12 waking hours cramped in a small seat watching 5 movies back to back ...

9volt

Reports are that there won't be an economy cabin. Only a business and premium economy cabin, similar to the A340 that used to fly the route.

24left

From RunwayGirl Network, May 2017:

Singapore Airlines revisits Business-Premium-only for A350-900ULR

Quote:

"Information.....suggests that Singapore Airlines will take 68 business class and 94 premium economy seats for its longest and most prestigious routes. The seating configuration is very reminiscent of the mix the airline offered on the first iteration of its Airbus A340-500 in February 2004, with 64 Raffles Class angled lie-flat sleeper seats in business and 117 Executive Economy premium economy seats, although the slightly narrower A340 fuselage meant that Executive Economy was in a 2-3-2 layout."

https://runwaygirlnetwork.com/2017/0...r-a350-900ulr/


In May of 2017, David Flynn wrote this article:

No economy seats on Singapore Airlines' long-range Airbus A350

https://www.ausbt.com.au/no-economy-...ge-airbus-a350


In November 2017, this one

Singapore Airlines coy on long-range Airbus A350 business class

https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-a...business-class
.

EncrypgenGenius1

Who the heck can sleep for 8 hours in coach? I'd be thankful to get 1 hour of sleep.

jjjohn

i could manage to sleep quite long hours, the record was closed to 10 hr, back in student time.

TravelwhileyouEat

Wishful thinking... but hopefully SQ comes up with some kind of innovation for the J cabin... like a door maybe, or a better sleeping position/configuration. For PEY, they could add leg rests like what CX has to all rows.

davidj1

Great strides being taken in aviation.

However am I the only one thinking we need to pull back the focus solely on range and start considering speed again? Like the Concorde?

People here and others are horrified at the though of spending 18+ hours in an aircraft non-stop, when they really don't need to if speed was increased.

There is a myriad of other advantages, say if a 15 hour flight was reduced down to less than 10 hours. For example, ROI per aircraft would increase (from running more sectors), less staffing costs per flight, potentially lower catering requirements etc. I don't think fuel burn would decrease unless new tech comes into play.

yurtripper

Never managed to sleep in coach without whiskey and sleeping pills.

24left

I think there is always going to be discussion on speed versus non-stop and comfort. Someone from a generation older than me who actually flew Concorde London-New York said that they were not comfortable but that was offset by the ability to get to New York in approx 3 hours. For whatever reason, there does not seem to be as much interest by airlines in investing in aircraft with that type of speed, at least not now. So some have opted for very long distance instead, SQ and QF with their recent PER-LHR. I suppose another factor is price and if airlines don't think there will be premium pax who want to pay for the fares that come with it.

If SQ bought these aircraft, they must have the numbers that will allow for profit on the routes they fly.

TravelwhileyouEat

Agreed, but this will be a costly R&D venture unless there is a eureka breakthrough, like an engine with a new type of fuel allowing it to give more power.

Ideally it would be an aircraft that can fly even just 30 to 40% faster without increasing the amount of fuel needed vs. current aircraft and keeping the range. I can see a 12 hour trip turning into an 8 hour one, or a 6 hour trip being just under 4 hours as a great incentive for airlines to buy it.

For now the focus is on range and fuel efficiency which I understand, but even flying in J... 20 hours on a plane is not something I would enjoy. Heck even the SFO - SIN direct was too long for me and I still prefer SQ 1/2.

24left

Published 11 hours ago





QUOTE:
"SINGAPORE - Singapore Airlines (SIA) is expected to pick up its new ultra-long-range aircraft in the third quarter of the year, with non-stop flights to New York due to be launched before the end of the year.

The 19-hour flight will see SIA reclaim the title of running the world's longest non-stop flight - a record it held with its Singapore-Newark flight from 2004 to 2013.

The airline is also expected to start non-stop services to Los Angeles - a flight that takes more than 15 hours - next year, The Straits Times understands."


Ful article

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapo...19-hour-flight

lazard

So are they gonna keep JFK-FRA-SIN or axe it?

TravelwhileyouEat

Keep it, given that the SIN-JFK direct will only have J and PEY seats, they can't lose the F and Y capacity.

dpy940307

while this is awesome, i’m not sure if i’d choose direct flights over JFK-FRA-SIN. A flight that long is exhausting, and saves only a marginal amount of time compared to stopover at FRA, where the layover was a lifesaver for me w/ 2 hours relaxing in the lounge and a shower

also if i'm flying PE i'd rather fly A380 than A350, given SQ has 2-4-2 rather than 2-3-2 in PE on A350s