End of the SQ Long Flights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Singapore
Age: 74
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
End of the SQ Long Flights
According to the HuffPost, SQ is terminating the non stop flights between Singapore and the US... Newark and Los Angeles.
Singapore Airlines Ending World's Longest Flight
The article cites economics as the reason. I reckon carrying that much fuel to carry fuel does add up.
Singapore Airlines Ending World's Longest Flight
The article cites economics as the reason. I reckon carrying that much fuel to carry fuel does add up.
N4790P
TG couldn't make their non stop A345 services to LA or New York work either operating a 3 class C60 J42 Y113 config either.
Used both the TG and SQ non stop services to LAX a few times and they were always full so would appear that the yields just weren't there.
Used both the TG and SQ non stop services to LAX a few times and they were always full so would appear that the yields just weren't there.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Planet Moo Moo
Posts: 1,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All Busness Class is a concept that has been tried several times, and never seems to cut it ecconomically.
I think their trump card is the ability to transit US customs in Shannon. Once airborne from Shannon you become a US domestic flight with a straight through immigration at the other end.
From what I understand their load factors and revenue per passenger mile are very good.
BA with LCY-JFK seems to be turning a good margin.
I think their trump card is the ability to transit US customs in Shannon. Once airborne from Shannon you become a US domestic flight with a straight through immigration at the other end.
I think their trump card is the ability to transit US customs in Shannon. Once airborne from Shannon you become a US domestic flight with a straight through immigration at the other end.
I can't imagine the EWR-SIN flight ever made much (or any) money, given the 18hr+ block time, the cost of fuel, aircraft, crews, landing/overflight charges, stand fees etc.
I don't know quite how much gas went onto that thing but the wingtips were distinctly bent downwards! Just the fuel alone would add up to $150,000+ and it had less than 100 seats...
I don't know quite how much gas went onto that thing but the wingtips were distinctly bent downwards! Just the fuel alone would add up to $150,000+ and it had less than 100 seats...
We know it's the non stop to the US when an aircraft needs to coordinate being unable to meet the height requirements on the SID with ATC.
I was told that fuel burnt towards the end of the 18-19 hour flight needed 4 times that amount loaded at the start. ie load a ton of fuel and use 750kg of it just to carry it. With high fuel prices it becomes more economical to stop half way and refuel rather than carry massive amounts of dead weight.
I was told that fuel burnt towards the end of the 18-19 hour flight needed 4 times that amount loaded at the start. ie load a ton of fuel and use 750kg of it just to carry it. With high fuel prices it becomes more economical to stop half way and refuel rather than carry massive amounts of dead weight.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: the edge of madness
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wonder what Airbus will do with the returned A340-500s? They were already offering two brand new undelivered Kingfisher aircraft for $75m each - half price - with no takers. Not sure there are that many squillionaires out there for them to become bizjets. I'm sure Airbus would welcome ideas . . . . ?
