Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POSTCARDS FROM SINGAPORE : A380 pleases, Virgin Atlantic disappoints

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • POSTCARDS FROM SINGAPORE : A380 pleases, Virgin Atlantic disappoints

    source : www.atwonline.com
    SIA's Chew: A380 pleases, Virgin Atlantic disappoints
    Thursday December 13, 2007
    Singapore Airlines' new A380 has performed with 100% reliability since the carrier placed it in operation about a month ago, CEO Chew Choong Seng told ATWOnline during the Star Alliance event in Beijing.

    "The extra time [due to the program delay] was put into good use. They used it to debug the aircraft," he commented, adding that the reception of customers, pilots and cabin crew has been "extremely positive." The aircraft operates on a daily Singapore-Sydney service (ATWOnline, Oct. 26), logging some 14 block hr. each day, and achieved an 80% load factor in its first month of operations. For the coming Christmas season it will be 100%, Chew said.

    In addition, the 12 first class Singapore Airlines Suites are selling very well, he revealed. "I suspect that our friendly competition is an enthusiastic customer," he laughed. In terms of technical performance, specifically fuel burn, the aircraft is performing better than Airbus promised. "In seat/mile terms we achieve overall a 20% better fuel burn than our 747-400s."

    Regarding possible divestment of the 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic Airways that SIA acquired in 2000, Chew said, "We are exploring our options. We have reached no conclusion yet. There is no drain on our P&L account. We are not in a rush." He said the UK carrier is neither profitable or loss-making and conceded to this website, "To be candid, they are underperforming."


    by Cathy Buyck
    Thanks for visiting
    *Avimage's Monthly Slide list *
    *JetPhotos*
    Airliners*Pbase.com

  • #2
    But then again, when compared to SQ - isn't everyone underpreforming?
    Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by AA 1818
      But then again, when compared to SQ - isn't everyone underpreforming?
      True that! Now if they launched a LCC in America like Virgin did...
      Follow me on Twitter! www.twitter.com/flyingphotog

      Comment


      • #4
        What is certainly not underperforming is the A380, on the contrary.

        100% reliability and:

        In terms of technical performance, specifically fuel burn, the aircraft is performing better than Airbus promised. "In seat/mile terms we achieve overall a 20% better fuel burn than our 747-400s."
        That's remarkable, for once Airbus exceeded its promises; and this is the first aircraft in operation that was said to be 6 tonnes overweight.

        Now, more than ever, Boeing will have a hard time selling the B748i. They will have to pull something very special from it.

        Regards.
        TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

        Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

        www.flytap.com

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by TAP-A343
          Now, more than ever, Boeing will have a hard time selling the B748i. They will have to pull something very special from it.

          Regards.

          It's a bit difficult to compare apples to oranges, don't you think?
          Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by AA 1818
            It's a bit difficult to compare apples to oranges, don't you think?
            I agree. WOW i am amazed that Airbus has acheived better than the expectations. Let's see if the A350XWB lives up (at least) to it's promise. About the 748i, it looks like a more comfortable plane, in regards to space. Airbus had learnt a lesson from previous models, and Airbus has made a 500-tonne, environmentally friendly plane (considering fuel consumption perseat). I never have thought i would put "500-tonne" and "environmentally friendly" in the same sentence!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by AA 1818
              It's a bit difficult to compare apples to oranges, don't you think?
              Both are in VLA market segment and comparing seat/mile fuel burn in this case seems like comparing apples to apples, to me.

              Moreover, SQ is comparing the A380 to the B744 and Boeing compares the B748i to the B744 and even to the A380.

              Regards.
              TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

              Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

              www.flytap.com

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by TAP-A343
                Both are in VLA market segment and comparing seat/mile fuel burn in this case seems like comparing apples to apples, to me.

                Moreover, SQ is comparing the A380 to the B744 and Boeing compares the B748i to the B744 and even to the A380.

                Regards.

                Au contraire, my dear - we have a bit of a problem you see. I naturally assumed that you would not go as far as to compare an aircraft that has not yet flown to an aircraft that is in existence. To address your rather flawed logic - I wish for you to consider that the 747-8I has not yet been launched. We cannot be sure as to how the aircraft operates. As is common for Boeing, the standards are ususally downplayed (and the aircraft meets and mostly outpreforms their set standards).

                While SQ made the error of comparing their rather older technology 747-400s to their newer and newer technology A380, I would have assumed that you would have seen the flaw in this logic and not do the same. But while we are comparing, let us consider the facts - the 747-400s are older aircrafts, with older technologies, constructed in an era when feul economy was not of a great importance and as of such, there was no big need for extra-ordinary feul economy, but rather compfort and range. The design has been around for decades without much change, and yet only a fool would compare that to an aircraft that is envisioned, built and opreating within our present decade. Flawed logic, my friend - flawed logic.

                But let's consider this - seeing that SQ operates A345s, what if they were to compare the feul-burn of the A345 to that of the A380. Wouldn't the statistics be even more mind-boggling? And what further, if they were to compare the fuel economics of the A345 to that of the 747-400? Then what? The facts say nothing more than "The A380 is doign well when compared to older technology".

                And of indeed you do not fully comprehend my focus with this post. Consider this. Let's compare (and for the moment, bear with me b/c I do not beleive the 787 and the A350 comparable markets b/c they are gonig after distinguishably different markets). The 787 has a sooner EIS date. More airline are interested in it. And so it takes the cake. The A350 has a latter EIS date, and while it recieves some attention, is not gather as much sales as the 787. But why didn't Airbus hurry the A350? They could have, but they decided to wait, not to destroy some set plans for the moment, b/c they are gonig to see where the shortcomings of the 787 lie and then attack that market. They are doign a great job, and the A350 is looking to be an ample A330 and 777 replacement. With the "wait" in time, they are guaranteeing a possible advantage. In the future, the 748I may proove to have much better feul economy than the 747-400 and the A380. It may have longer/better range. Only time will tell. Using flawed logic will get us nowhere.
                Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The 747-8 Intercontinental is 15 percent more fuel efficient than the 747-400, 10 percent more fuel efficient than the A380, and offers guaranteed QC2 departures.
                  Source: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/747...ackground.html

                  Now that is a flawed logic considering that SQ is saying that the A380 is 20% more fuel efficient than the B744.

                  Of course, SQ is using its seat numbers but anyway it's a fair comparison.

                  Regards.
                  TAP - Transportes Aéreos Portugueses

                  Voe mais alto. Fly higher.

                  www.flytap.com

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    When we are talking about larger a/c even a 5% more efficient aircraft in fuel burn adds up to a rather large amount of fuel and in turn money saved.
                    One of the main facts being ignored here is that in a higher density pax configoration on an A380 the fact that 500 + passengers can travel in high comfort, lower noise and still be 20% odd more effiecient than 7474 and close to the spectre of the 7478's fuel economy( should it go ahead??) then surely litres per pax per mile is the most important factor if we are looking at the whole picture. I would not have thought the 7478 will be any better that the current 747 in pax numbers? so then the litres per pax per mile drops somewhat eh?
                    Surely one a/c that can carry twice the pax of a 787 or A350 and help drop sky congestion is a good idea?? Why have 2x aircraft in the air when you can have one?
                    I am sure i will be corrected on some of these..lol

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Well, starting with you last point first,

                      Why have 2 aircraft in the air when you can have one? Because passengers want FREQUENCY.

                      They'd much rather have 3 flights a day to a destination with smaller aircraft than one larger aircraft once a day. This has proven itself time and time again.

                      If you believe what Boeing say (they're usually at least ballpark), the 747-8 is more fuel efficient per seat mile. They've done those comparisons. So, you don't have to adjust for pax numbers, their figures allow for that. Don't forget that the A380 for SG has less than 480pax in it. It will hold 51 seats more in a typical 3 class config than the 744.

                      The main benifit, as I see it, is the fact that it will be an existing type rating (all 744 qualified pilots can fly it), and it fits in existing infrastructure (no new tugs, gates, runways etc). Thats worth a fortune!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yet the SQ A380 is anything but typical when it comes to passenger comfort in first and business class.
                        My photo editing guide - updated and improved Feb. 2010
                        My Nikon D100,D200,D300, D800, D7200 basic spotting settings guide
                        ACIG - the best resource for military aviation information

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Frequency...... i don't think that is a valid example
                          We are not talking about jumping on the bus to go down the shops!
                          Air travel for the majority is very infrequent, i couldn't give a monkeys if there was only 1 flight a day to my destination. If it was a very popular route why not have 2 flights a day! Airlines would make more money by not having to support so many flights. So what if i have to get up early or go late!
                          Unfortunately if pax numbers keep increasing then A380 and 7478 size will come into play,
                          when the politicians start capping numbers of aircraft, congestion+environmental issues will prevail, i think it will be inevitable.
                          I know there is this point to point thing also prevailing and i ain't too sure of that either.
                          Sure there has had to be investment by the infrastructure to accomodate these aircraft, but hey nothing lasts forever, they would eventually had to replace the tugs and service vehicles anyway, its just come a bit earlier and its not like they can't be used on other aircraft types?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            If you don't think frequency is the key, then you unfortunately know very little about how the industry works.

                            YOU might be happy with one flight a day. I can assure you that most passengers are not.

                            Lets take a domestic example. In Australia, Qantas operates a 737 every half an hour SYD - MEL. They have 450 seat 747's sitting idle. Why do they not operate one 747 every 2 hours instead of one 737 every 30 mins? Because passengers want frequency.

                            Why did Qantas pull out of Paris? Because they were allowed only one flight every 2 days. They couldn't make it work, because they need a higher frequency of operation.

                            As to the contribution to global warming... ALL aviation gives off the same emmissions as 1% of the worlds cars. Aviation is being targetted as the main pollutant, because its harder to stop the real causes.

                            Absolutely we should be desingning and building more fuel efficient aircraft. The A380, and the 747-8 will both end up reasonably successful aircraft. But have you noticed that most operators have been buying slightly SMALLER aircraft so they can have increased frequency of services and destinations?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              To add to MCM's reply - why is the 737 the most popular commercial airliner of all time. Surely, airlines would not use the 737 if they could operate the 747. Why is the 787 such a hot seller? Why did any other aircraft since the 747 sell as well?

                              Another example, back in the hay-day of "BWIA" the airline operated 737-800s, Dash-8s and A340-300s. Now, the POS(Piarco International Airport) - TAB (Crown Pointe International Airport) route is about 15 minutes flying, but was once served every half-hours. Why not consolidate and use one A343 in the morning with a return leg at night? B/C that is REDICULUOUS!!! People wanted to come and go at all times and were willing to pay for that service. A daily A343 flight would have killed the market as no one would have flown it and many passengers would have gone to the national sea ferry rather than flying.

                              The real issue is that you cannot compare SQ's version of the A380 and say that all A380's wil preform like that. SQ's version is significantly lighter (the roomier interiors with so many business-class and suites makes more room, less passengers and a lighter load). Don't get me wrong, the statistics are fantastic, considering that this is one of the first models (which as is shown, most first models are usually overweight), and that the future versions are gong to be better on feul, but I tried to get everyone not to compare Apples to Plums to Oranges.
                              Whatever is necessary, is never unwise.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X