Singapore Airlines: non-stop USA flights with long-range A350

I'm thinking DVT could be a real concern on that length of flight

I believe they should do like what they once did with their A345s...but have their new premium economy product inplace of their old executive economy.   Have the same 2-4-2 configuration as on their upcoming refitted 77Ws.  Have the whole aft section as around 70 premium eco seats, 1 row of 4 First seats just cos and the rest as around 80 business class.

I'd go for 2 rows of three-abreast first (a-la CX 77W), the bulk of the seats as 4-abreast J, and a 2+4+2 W cabin at the very rear.  If F doesn't sell, pull it out and install a mini-J cabin sooner rather than later.

A350-900R or 777-8, it doesn't really make that much difference.

I was taking the 1-2-1 first layout to be the same as current 77Ws...having 1-1-1 herringbone is not something that i see SQ ever having.  Their first class seats take up pretty much the same space as their J class, so swapping them out for another row of J wouldn't be an issue.

I like your thinking fxdxdy! Two short hops at supersonic speed with a refresher stop on the ground with just enough time to grab a shower and meal, thus leaving time to do a good day's work in flight would be my idea of perfect!  19 hours in the air does not sound appealing, even First Class would get tedious after that length of time.

>And out of the box thinking - what stopping them to develop refuel in air? 

Cost and safety, I would imagine. 

Cost, because buying, maintaining and launching a midair tanker is expensive. More expensive to launch an entire extra plane than simply to take extra fuel.

Cost, because you'd have to hugely reengineer your entire airliner for mid-air refuelling. Running fuel lines from the nose to the wing, without going through the passenger compartment or cockpit, worrying about weight and safety and leaks... it sounds tricky.

Safety, because flying two big planes next to one another is intrinsically unsafe. The military is willing to take the risk, but civilian airlines aren't.

Oh, and by the way, the route from New York to Singapore doesn't go anywhere near the US west coast, it goes straight over the North Pole.

"Oh, and by the way, the route from New York to Singapore doesn't go anywhere near the US west coast, it goes straight over the North Pole."

My exact thought when I read serg's comment

It is not - search google. Yes it not straight line and it getting far North, but it never get more North than Alaska does.

As for refueling I accept everything that been written, but think that everything exaggerated - there are no evidences (like extensive crashes) that refueling in air more dangerous then say landing in heavy cross wind.

are you gonna provide the R&D funds for that project?  Airbus are hesitant about an A350-1100 and even more so the A380NEO, nevermind something as complicated as this.

And meaning of you comment? They are hesitant and do not like to invest in anything like in-air refueling or super long-range aircraft simply because very few rouses can use it (we are talking about half a dozen aircrafts here!) - it is economically not viable for them, period. In fact it is SQ problem if they wish to fly Singapore – New York non-stop. And as I said somewhere I fail to see why not make stopover in Vancouver for example – adds mere 2 hr of time, give passengers a chance to stretch and company to pick up more passengers.

PS: conclusion is SQ must fund it if they interested.

airservices agreements prevent them from having a stopover...that's in the control of the governments of whatever countries are involved, not SQ.

So SQ just greedy and they do not like to pay. So this problem is business one, not technical.

I believe the Singapore-Canada bilateral does not allow pickup rights between YVR and other cities (unlike the Hong Kong-Canada bilateral, which allows Cathay to have local traffic on the YVR-JFK portion of CX888/889).

Sorry but the great circle (shortest distance) track from SIN to JFK passes about 250 km from the North Pole - the track from SIN is 357.5 deg true only 0.5 deg from true north. In the reverse direction the track is 0.5 deg - near enough to over the pole. Daily routes may vary due to weather and winds.

AFAIK SQ21 was flying via Japan and Alaska while JQ22 much close to the Pole, though still not by "ideal" route. Did you ever hear something about jet streams? Better google it than stupid automatically generated map. "Ideal" route is about only 1000km longer then Japan-Alaska one, but having stopover on Alaska surely would require to burn less fuel (or carry more payload).

Matthew - agree! I too flew EWK-SIN 3-4 times a year. It was too hard in economy and SIA removed economy and then it was all business on the A340-500. Like you I was one year away from life Solitaire and they cancelled life program so I abandoned SIA and so did my 5 staff at that time. The direct flight works for me.  I still have my signed certificate from the Captain of the first flight!

The A359LR is not a thing as of yet, whereas the 778X is already announced.  Why would they wait for some imaginary aircraft when the 778X fits the bill and it's not like the 777 is a new type.  Once upon a time (before EK) SQ was the largest 777 operator in the world until around 2009.

Yeah, I presume this jet will also do direct US West Coast services. LAX and SFO. Maybe also a Canadian service to Vancouver?

As for the New York jet's configuration, I can see the logic. NYC to SIN would be hugely dominated by business travellers, plus even though SQ's economy class is the best in the sky the simple fact is that 19 hours is too long for almost anyone to remain comfortable.

So Premium Economy + Business + First makes remarkable sense for the New York flight. The smaller number of passengers for such a service would also help preserve the jet's longer range.

Also, regarding the issue of direct services... it is possible that SQ makes quite a bit from the HKG-SFO leg (its clearly a premium-heavy route given both HK and SF are financial/business centers), and they also give Cathay some competition. I can easily see SQ perhaps relinquishing the ICN stopover route though.

lol i guess my previous comment about the A359LR being imaginary has been proven wrong by this article update

The problem with Vancouver is that SQ and AC do not play nicely together despite being Star Alliance partners.  That's why SQ discontinued their previous Vancouver service.

SQ wants to fly passengers from SIN to YVR and have them connect to AC, while AC wants to fly passengers from YYZ/YVR/YYC to TYO/HKG and have them connect to SQ (or NH).  Essentially, both carriers want to fly the lucrative TPAC portion themselves and then dump the passengers onto their partner for the last regional leg.

I'd suggest they compromise and form an immunized joint venture like the US carriers have with Japan, but it'll never happen since no one in their right mind would choose AC over SQ!

SQ flights 16 and 16 do SIN-ICN-SFO and the reverse daily. I have flown SFO-ICN numerous times.

On a more general nopte I have flown a few times EWR-SIN on SQ A340-500 with the all business class 1-2-1 layout . Whilst its comfortable I much prefer to take the JFK-FRA-SIN and reverse trip - a couple of hours longer but with a stretch of legs and a shower at FRA its worth it - not to mentionm a cheasper fare.

I believe you're mistaking nautical miles and statute miles.  Singapore to Newark is less than 8300 nautical miles, while the 778 has, as you said, 9300 nautical miles.  So that extra 1000 nautical miles of aircraft range should cover the headwinds and diversions.

Actually, Boeing recently revised down their jet's range. For a long time they've been using an extremely forgiving set of assumptions about the range of their jets, and now they've switched to a more realistic set.

777-8x now has a range of 8 700 nmi... so it does fall short of the range SQ needs.

That said, if SQ ran an all-premium service, the 777-8x's range probably would creep up significantly... maybe not to 9300nmi but I'd presume 9000nmi would be likely.

Looking at the technical specs on the Boeing Website, the range for both the B777-8 and B777-9 have been greatly reduced from pre-feasibility estimates. Although I think B777-8X would be sufficient for SQ's needs, it's easy to see why they haven't jumped on it as soon as it came out. They're waiting for both Airbus and Boeing to innovate something special, like QF did for the B747-400ER.

 

I would say the opposite is the case. The reason they don't opt for a 778 or something like that is  because they want to fly the route asap and they can't have one of those designs before the 2020s let alone delays and changes in specs.

Furthermore, from what I understood, Airbus probably won't make big technical changes but instead focus in shedding weight. If you only have to accommodate, say, 120 passengers you can save many many kgs on equipment, luggage etc etc. That could be enough to increase range or use the not needed space for additional fuel tanks in the center of the aircraft.

QF have already said they looked at the A350 and decided on the 787. They have 50 options for the 787-9 at bargain-basement prices, and the A350-LR would take a lot longer to arrive (the 787-9 could be arriving in 2017).

In addition, the only route QF have which is genuinely difficult range-wise is the Sydney/Dallas route. A380s are presently handling that and a 777-8x could handle it with more ease (since the -8x has 200nmi extra range even under realistic assumptions).

I know some people have an attachment to specific aircraft manufacturers, but QF already have their mid-size jet picked out. Its going to be the 787-9 Dreamliner. Its frankly the better aircraft for QF. This doesn't mean Airbus is "bad" or anything... merely that due to market and geography and various other reasons the Dreamliner is a better choice for Qantas than the A350.

I don't have a preference for a manufacturer.  Just an interested observer of Qantas's strategy.  I believe that 20 August was viewed as a potential announcement date. 

This will end up just like the -500s....with very low residual value of this highly specialized aircraft killing the economics eventually.  Those old birds were built for such low cycle count that even compared to other A340s (all squishy values)...they were the worst of the lot.  

Not saying SQ won't launch this if they get the plane spec'd...I think they will launch it....the old routes had great yields.  However, ten years hence, they'll again have a fleet of nearly worthless aircraft.  

people seem to be mixing nautical and statute miles...like using statue miles for distance between points then comparing it to nautical mile range of aircraft or vice versa

Another thought: If a 900ULR can be easily refitted to return to 900 standard, can an existing 900 be retrofitted to become a 900ULR?

No. The design of the aircraft will need to change to compensate for the extra fuel tanks, MTOW. I read somewhere that the A350ULR will have the six bogey wheel like the 777 and the strengthened wing of the A350-1000. If it were that simple to retrofit a normal A350-900 to ULR then SIA would be starting New York flights next year when it receives its first A350.

They're not going to buy planes to get bragging rights. If there's a business case for it they will pursue it. Besides for ultra long haul flights it will be heavily dependent on the business loads for revenue. Either way Economy passengers comes out the losers, having to be stuck in 31-32 inch seating for 20 something hours.

AJT they will be doing two of those fligths with 789s in a couple of years (2017 so they say) so no need for the 777-8X which they will probably uses post 2022 or so..