chichow

With all of the press on the recent flight of the A380, the Airbus Boeing camps are blasting away. Anyways, the Boeing camp points out to SQ replacing Airbus with Boeing aircraft and also mention the SIN-EWR/LAX routes.

So the question is: Given the A345 configuration (executive econ and business), the route, the fares, loads, yields, etc.

Are the A345 SIN-EWR/LAX routes profitable?

Keithl

According to a FTer who works for SQ. pax loads are very good. EWR is seeing some 90% and LAX 80%. Mostly full in J.

Cargo, not so sure....considering that EWR needs a payload restriction.

Boeing is saying that 'cos the 772LR doesn't have a payload restriction like the A345

MegatopLover

What's the deal with the payload restriction on the A345 ex-EWR?

Is that why the aircraft seemed to eat up the ENTIRE runway and had a *very* gradual climb-out? (I'm thinking of a full flight in terms of pax load.) I know the A340-300 has a funny pause at the rotation point, and the A345 seemed to do the same thing but for quite a while and then took the ascent very gradually.

MAN Flyer

One of the reasons SQ kept the seat numbers a bit low was their belief that it would be pretty lucrative for freight on both the A345 direct services.

MegatopLover

I had read that in a trade magazine too, which was why I was surprised to hear of any significant payload restrictions ex-EWR under the reduced pax-load configuration. 'Course, reducing pax load in favor of cargo is consistent with the old airline industry saw: cargo doesn't complain.

StarG

Something I don't understand: wouldn't it be a bit of a waste? Cargoes don't need non-stop services, do it?

I hope they won't limit the PPS benefit of double baggage allowance for these non-stops 'due to payload restrictions'.
I have never brought less than 4 x 32 kgs suitcases back from USA.
All they need to avoid is people like me travelling with my family taking full advantage of double baggage allowance for all family members. (= 16 x 32 kgs)

chichow

The rumblings that I hear (admittedly USA stateside) is that SQ is not as happy with the performance of the A345 relative to what was promised.

So even though the passenger load is lighter, SQ still can't get the amount of cargo it wants into the A345 due to poorer than expected performance.

but I'm just repeating...I have no idea whether its true.

anyone with factual data? I am scared of airwhiners.net

crazycrab955

All I have to add is that a close friend flies as a captain for SQ on the B777, and he told me just last week that SQ is rather disappointed with the A345. Pilots don't particularly like it, maintenance for even minor problems has been more frequent than expected, and most importantly the performance has not been quite as advertised.

According to him, SQ configured the aircraft with lower-density seating to emphasize cargo uplift capability but also because both of the routes were at or near the limits of the aircraft under heavier headwinds.

If, as has been rumoured, SQ dumps the A345 in favor of the B772LR (as AC has just decided to do), these will presumably no longer be problems.

It's just word-of-mouth rumours, I know, but it's better than the stuff you see on that other site.

zvezda

Given that SQ would benefit from fleet commonality in addition to the inherently superior performance of the B777-200LR relative to the A340-500, it seems very likely that SQ will replace the latter. I think SQ are patiently playing the tough negotiator, pretending that they are not interested. Eventually, I expect SQ to order the B787, B777-200LR, and B747Adv, despite statements to the contrary.

eddyooi

Guess we will all wait and see what SQ does.... Speaking of the A345 flights, has the inflight experience change in the past 12 months? I last flew it in May 2004 but will fly SQ20/19 again in May 2005. Pretty excited once again but worry if the route is not so profitable, SQ might cut back on service. Sat in 11K previously, but will be in 16A this time. Hmmm...the flight's choke full this time so I will have to bear sitting in the second cabin.

Scott218

I heard while on a SIN-SYD flight that A345s are burning more fuels than expected. Also, maintenance has been a slight issue.

why fly

It also might be a bit of a problem selling the planes.... With the Boeing coming the 345 are going to be dogs... someone will have to buy AC planes, and of SQ gets rid of its planes who will buy them without a huge discount.

MAN Flyer

Maybe SQ should worry about their fleet, which I'm sure they'll manage, and others should worry about their bizarre dislike of a/c types .

why fly

If you had been on AC's 345, the dislike is not Bizarre....
SQ's are much better but I would still prefer the 747.. or a 777.

MAN Flyer

Haven't been on AC's 345 so can't comment. I prefer a 744 to anything in the air at the moment after that I couldn't care less whether it's an A345 or 777, I care even less which company makes either...