Singapore Airlines to copy JetStar with a LCC
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Singapore Airlines to copy JetStar with a LCC
SQ announced today they will be setting up a new LCC flying 2 class 777s.
And what have they decided to call the airline, wait for it......"SingStar".
What will be next, gold and silver color scheme with a big star on the tail ?
I guess imitation is the best form of flattery !!!
SIA to set up new no-frills airline - Channel NewsAsia
And what have they decided to call the airline, wait for it......"SingStar".
What will be next, gold and silver color scheme with a big star on the tail ?
I guess imitation is the best form of flattery !!!
SIA to set up new no-frills airline - Channel NewsAsia
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tallong NSW
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This gives Qantas and Virgin Australia a lot to digest
Is this going to stress the our airlines? What does it mean for the workers?
Singapore Airlines 2nd brand sets scene for consolidation | Plane Talking
Singapore Airlines 2nd brand sets scene for consolidation | Plane Talking
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh God this is the dumbest thing I have read all year. Why on earth does SQ want to do a TG and do this? Don't they have enough subsidiaries and associate airlines without having to form YET another one?
Is the Singstar thing actually true or is it a joke?
It's not like SQ has that many aircraft on order so how are they actually going to find the aircraft for this joke of an LCC?
To me it sounds like they've run out of ideas.
Sitting on $7bil of cash, hardly any aircraft on order, and declared a dividend of S$1.40 per share - or 10% based on today's closing price. No other airline on earth comes close to offering a 10% dividend.
They should just redistribute half their market cap in dividends rather than start this silly Longhaul LCC.
Is the Singstar thing actually true or is it a joke?
It's not like SQ has that many aircraft on order so how are they actually going to find the aircraft for this joke of an LCC?
To me it sounds like they've run out of ideas.
Sitting on $7bil of cash, hardly any aircraft on order, and declared a dividend of S$1.40 per share - or 10% based on today's closing price. No other airline on earth comes close to offering a 10% dividend.
They should just redistribute half their market cap in dividends rather than start this silly Longhaul LCC.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't they have enough subsidiaries and associate airlines without having to form YET another one?
Sounds like one of those FOXTEL pay TV packs.
They should just redistribute half their market cap in dividends rather than start this silly Longhaul LCC.
Say goodbye to J* Europe. Your move Alan.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might be a reaction to Qantas Asia,
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly they are doing in threat from this...
Air Asia vies for Singapore operations - Airline News - etravelblackboardasia.com
Air Asia vies for Singapore operations - Airline News - etravelblackboardasia.com
With Jetstar Asia preparing for operations to Europe from SIN it is not unexpected that SQ would decide to match Jetstar Asia longhaul. The new SQ offshoot is expected to use SQ B777's and B744's that are being replaced with new a/c later in the year.
Somewhere in this jigsaw puzzle is Virgin Australia who is being sponsored into Star Alliance. I would suggest QF have their hands full and starting to question the A380 purchase.
Somewhere in this jigsaw puzzle is Virgin Australia who is being sponsored into Star Alliance. I would suggest QF have their hands full and starting to question the A380 purchase.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thing is, compared to legacy airlines operating the B744 on long-haul routes to/from and through Singapore, a B773 configured 2 class, say 50 seats Premium Economy, 330 to 350 seats Economy is a "SLCC: Significantly Lower Cost Operation" whether or not any other costs are reduced or eliminated.
Imagine: Good IFE, classy enough in-flight service to matter without being over the top, access to SQ's FF programme, access for premium Economy pax to the SQ Business lounges etc....all backed by SIA's brand and resources world-wide and taking up all the routes not quite as suitable for the premium brand, but offering just that little bit more class and service than a bare LCC. Wow-what a product to further build their dominance.
someone once said "If you're not flying the 777, you're not serious about the airline business". Not a bad line.
Imagine: Good IFE, classy enough in-flight service to matter without being over the top, access to SQ's FF programme, access for premium Economy pax to the SQ Business lounges etc....all backed by SIA's brand and resources world-wide and taking up all the routes not quite as suitable for the premium brand, but offering just that little bit more class and service than a bare LCC. Wow-what a product to further build their dominance.
someone once said "If you're not flying the 777, you're not serious about the airline business". Not a bad line.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“The closest competitor to the 777-200ER in operation today is the A340-300 – it has a range capability of 7485 nmi (nautical miles) when carrying a full load of 262 passengers, compared to the 777-200ER’s 7725 nmi with 301 passengers. When comparing these two long-range airplanes, the 777-200ER has significantly better fuel efficiency, with the A340-300 block fuel per seat being 13% higher on a typical 6,000-nmi trip. Its cash operating costs per seat on the same mission are 17% higher,” the Boeing document reads.
Indeed, in a 3,000 nm mission profile, the A340-300 burns 3.25 L of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers, whereas the 777-200ER burns 2.89L, a 11% reduction. In a 6,000 nm mission profile, meanwhile, the 777-200ER burns 3.08L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, also 11% less than the A340-300′s 3.49L fuel burn figure.
In the meantime, Boeing says the 777-200ER compares favorably to both the A330-200 and -300 variants, albeit that they are not being compared on an “apple-to-apple” basis.
“Now, if one wants to compare a medium-range A330 with the long-range 777, the 777 still holds its own even in this apples-to-oranges comparison. Among the two A330 models, the A330-300 (262 pax) is closer in size to the 777 than the A330-200 (241 pax), which competes more directly with the 767-300ER and 787-8 (242 pax). So let’s compare the A330-300 with the 777-200ER, for a 3000-nmi mission (because the A330-300 does not have 6000-nmi range capability). The A330-300 block fuel per seat is 3% higher, and its cash operating costs per seat are 6% higher. Not as bad as the four-engine A340-300, but still not as efficient as the 777-200ER. And keep in mind, the A330-300 has around 2000-nmi less range capability than the 777-200ER, so it’s not even in the same class of airplanes,” the Boeing document continues.
In the case of an A330-200 versus the 777-200ER, the former burns 3.11 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km whereas the latter only burns 2.89L, the difference between them being even bigger than the A330-300′s 2.98 L and the 777-200ER’s 2.89L figure in a 3,000 nm mission profile, Boeing data shows.
In a 6,000 nm mission profile, the A330-200 burns 3.32 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, whereas the 777-200ER’s figure stands at 3.08 L, a 7% reduction.
Moreover, the relative Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat-km of a 777-200ER is 11% and 13% lower than those of an A330-200 on 3,000 and 6,000 nm missions, respectively.
Ironically enough to Airbus’ claim in its advertisement that its misleading “15% lower Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat” translates to an “annual saving of at least $4.4 million per plane, per year”, operating an A330, regardless of its variant, is much costlier than operating than a 777-200ER, not to mention that the 777-200ER has a significantly larger revenue cargo volume which can be utilized to carry additional amounts of revenue and hence profit-generating cargoes after the passengers luggage has been fully loaded.
“In summary, there is no basis or logic to defend the ’15% lower than the 777-200ER’ claim seen in recent Airbus advertising. The only way to achieve this type of number would be to cherry-pick inconsistent assumptions and use dissimilar seating configurations to dramatically skew the results in favor of the A330,” the Boeing document concludes.
Indeed, in a 3,000 nm mission profile, the A340-300 burns 3.25 L of fuel per passenger per 100 kilometers, whereas the 777-200ER burns 2.89L, a 11% reduction. In a 6,000 nm mission profile, meanwhile, the 777-200ER burns 3.08L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, also 11% less than the A340-300′s 3.49L fuel burn figure.
In the meantime, Boeing says the 777-200ER compares favorably to both the A330-200 and -300 variants, albeit that they are not being compared on an “apple-to-apple” basis.
“Now, if one wants to compare a medium-range A330 with the long-range 777, the 777 still holds its own even in this apples-to-oranges comparison. Among the two A330 models, the A330-300 (262 pax) is closer in size to the 777 than the A330-200 (241 pax), which competes more directly with the 767-300ER and 787-8 (242 pax). So let’s compare the A330-300 with the 777-200ER, for a 3000-nmi mission (because the A330-300 does not have 6000-nmi range capability). The A330-300 block fuel per seat is 3% higher, and its cash operating costs per seat are 6% higher. Not as bad as the four-engine A340-300, but still not as efficient as the 777-200ER. And keep in mind, the A330-300 has around 2000-nmi less range capability than the 777-200ER, so it’s not even in the same class of airplanes,” the Boeing document continues.
In the case of an A330-200 versus the 777-200ER, the former burns 3.11 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km whereas the latter only burns 2.89L, the difference between them being even bigger than the A330-300′s 2.98 L and the 777-200ER’s 2.89L figure in a 3,000 nm mission profile, Boeing data shows.
In a 6,000 nm mission profile, the A330-200 burns 3.32 L of fuel per passenger per 100 km, whereas the 777-200ER’s figure stands at 3.08 L, a 7% reduction.
Moreover, the relative Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat-km of a 777-200ER is 11% and 13% lower than those of an A330-200 on 3,000 and 6,000 nm missions, respectively.
Ironically enough to Airbus’ claim in its advertisement that its misleading “15% lower Cash Operating Cost (COC) per seat” translates to an “annual saving of at least $4.4 million per plane, per year”, operating an A330, regardless of its variant, is much costlier than operating than a 777-200ER, not to mention that the 777-200ER has a significantly larger revenue cargo volume which can be utilized to carry additional amounts of revenue and hence profit-generating cargoes after the passengers luggage has been fully loaded.
“In summary, there is no basis or logic to defend the ’15% lower than the 777-200ER’ claim seen in recent Airbus advertising. The only way to achieve this type of number would be to cherry-pick inconsistent assumptions and use dissimilar seating configurations to dramatically skew the results in favor of the A330,” the Boeing document concludes.
(This article is worth bookmarking, as it has many good stats on various burn scenario's)
Sherm, recent information passed to me indicates the A380 is around 4+ litres/100Km per seat for a 6000nm sector. It is somewhere in the vicinity of ~5-8% lower burn compared to the 744, but without more data it is difficult to compare exacty. Suffice to say, the B777 appears to be ~30% lower fuel burn per seat compared to both the A380 & the 744. What was that you said...
someone once said "If you're not flying the 777, you're not serious about the airline business".
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's not really a balanced article when.....
No doubt the 777 is a great machine particularly the -300ER but the number of 330 sales proves it's the A/C of choice vs the -200ER.
Data provided by The Boeing Company
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Haven't got the manuals in front of me but back of the envelope plus a little Excel suggest that a B777-300ER over 6,000 nm with 375 seats would run out at about 3.1 litres per seat/100 km.
There's lot of caveats in making these comparisons of course, but I think that figure is roughly about right. And all the more awesome for a classy LCC (yes it can be done!!) if you take into account the added fact that in running such a fleet that it would have the marginally costed support of SIA's vast worldwide capabilities in training, logistics and engineering and that B777 and the GE engine maintenance costs have roughly the same saving as as a % of the 744 as do fuel costs. It truly is the machine of choice for the discerning fleet planner. Or even one who is not quite the sharpest chisel on the tool-bench.
One can only speculate how a major Australian flag carrier would be performing with say a 20 aircraft fleet of B777-300ER's now, 2 class config and plus a handful of 200LRs to do the really mind-numbing stuff like SYD-JFK, SYD-ORD, PER-LHR etc. Maybe Virgin will show us in stark detail, just how exquisitely true for QF is this, the most horrible of phrases:
"For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these "it might have been."
John Greenleaf Whittier (1856)
There's lot of caveats in making these comparisons of course, but I think that figure is roughly about right. And all the more awesome for a classy LCC (yes it can be done!!) if you take into account the added fact that in running such a fleet that it would have the marginally costed support of SIA's vast worldwide capabilities in training, logistics and engineering and that B777 and the GE engine maintenance costs have roughly the same saving as as a % of the 744 as do fuel costs. It truly is the machine of choice for the discerning fleet planner. Or even one who is not quite the sharpest chisel on the tool-bench.
One can only speculate how a major Australian flag carrier would be performing with say a 20 aircraft fleet of B777-300ER's now, 2 class config and plus a handful of 200LRs to do the really mind-numbing stuff like SYD-JFK, SYD-ORD, PER-LHR etc. Maybe Virgin will show us in stark detail, just how exquisitely true for QF is this, the most horrible of phrases:
"For all sad words of tongue or pen, the saddest are these "it might have been."
John Greenleaf Whittier (1856)
Last edited by Captain Sherm; 26th May 2011 at 07:33.