First A380 delivery

[Kingfish]

I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

> Makes
> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>

The seats are different. Very. Wait for the pics.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Kingfish]

On Oct 15, 10:11 am, Thomas Borchert >
wrote:
> Kingfish,
>
> > Makes
> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>
> The seats are different. Very. Wait for the pics.

???

Does that justify spending bazillions on new aircraft? I thought the
whole point of A380 was more bodies onboard, then SIA only puts in 471
seats? Does't make sense to me.

[Stefan]

Kingfish schrieb:

> Does that justify spending bazillions on new aircraft? I thought the
> whole point of A380 was more bodies onboard, then SIA only puts in 471
> seats? Does't make sense to me.

The point is to have more room. It's up to the airline what they want to
do with that room: Fill in more meat or offer more luxury. I would guess
that Singapur Airlines knows better than I or you what they can sell in
Singapur.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in news:1192456533.874457.213800
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>




Because then they wouldn't be able to do this:

I don't think singapore has signed up for this program yet, but they
certainly will. They're one of the worlds worst aviation employers and
having people they could control more easily would be a godsend to them.






Financial Times FT.com
Airlines call for reinforcements in the cockpit

By Raphael Minder
Published: October 7 2007 22:09 | Last updated: October 7 2007 22:09

It will take just over a year for Christine Lopez, a 26-year-old
Filipino, to complete the transition from catwalk to the cockpit of an
Airbus A320.

If all goes to plan, the former model will become the fastest person to
qualify as a commercial airline pilot, under a revolutionary training
scheme - the multi-crew pilot licence (MPL) - that was approved last
November by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, the sector's
regulatory body. She says: "I started to think that I wanted to fly
during my high-school days but I never thought that, once I decided to
do it, it could happen this quick."

Ms Lopez will receive her licence from a new aviation school opened on
the grounds of a former US air base in Clark, north of Manila. It will
qualify her for a job at Cebu Pacific, the largest domestic carrier in
the Philippines, which has sponsored her training.
Clark is one of three schools - the others are in Denmark and Australia
- pioneering the MPL. It reduces schooling time by tailoring the
training to a specific type of aircraft and using flight simulators more
than planes.

The streamlined MPL is addressing the dearth of pilots, particularly in
Asia, the world's fastest growing aviation market. In India, more than
6,000 pilots will be required to meet the anticipated doubling of
passenger traffic over the coming 10 years. Last month, the General
Administration of Civil Aviation of China warned that it only had the
capacity to train 7,000 of the 9,000 pilots required by the country's
airline industry by 2010.

The story of MPL's creation illustrates how companies finding themselves
facing a recruitment crunch can use a combination of technology and
smart training methods to fill the gap.

Rick Norman, a former pilot who is now flight operations manager at
Clark, says: "This is a course that gets you straight to where you want
to be. The day after you get the licence, you should be flying from
Manila to Bangkok, with 180 passengers behind you."
The Clark school was established by Alpha Aviation, a privately held
British group, in partnership with Cebu, which is sponsoring 59 of the
104 students. Alpha is talking to several Asian airlines about
replicating its joint venture model and expects to open 10 more schools
in the region over the coming five years.

Mr Norman says: "The blueprint that we have developed in Clark is
clearly very attractive to lots of Asian and Middle Eastern airlines
that are facing the same need to find more pilots."

Demand has risen just as the pool of available pilots has dwindled due
to the decision by many Asian countries to reduce their air forces - a
traditional training ground for commercial aviation. The profession has
also become less financially attractive as airlines such as Cathay
Pacific have gone through bruising battles with pilots to cut staff
costs. Andy Law, a senior Cathay captain, admits: "The people who go to
our cadet school are capable of doing plenty of other things ... Cathay
is finding it difficult to attract people from the local community,
which is a bit of a concern."

The timing of MPL's introduction therefore is opportune, but it has
sparked criticism from pilot unions and industry pundits that it could
lead to lower standards, just as crashes in Indonesia and Thailand have
put safety levels under the spotlight. Jim Eckes, an aviation consultant
and former commercial pilot, points out: "You can do amazing things with
a simulator, but it's really only when you're up there, flying alone,
that you can build up the confidence."

Clark certainly doesn't lack rigour. Students in freshly pressed pilot
uniforms stand to attention when visitors enter the classroom. Their 12-
month course involves a minimum of 70 hours of flying, including 30
hours solo, as well as at least 180 hours spent on a simulator. However,
the bulk of the course is in class, with much of the learning coming
from computer coursework. That helps explain why the Clark licence, at
$80,000 for the year, is relatively cheap by industry standards.

In Asia, where being a pilot has been prohibitively costly, the MPL's
arrival is a welcome opportunity. As Marsha Bell, vice-president at
Alteon, Boeing's training subsidiary, says: "The dream of flying is not
something that everybody in Asia has been exposed to. This (MPL) makes
it accessible, as well as more advantageous."

[Thomas Borchert]

Kingfish,

Ok, I'll spell it out.

> I thought the
> whole point of A380 was more bodies onboard, then SIA only puts in 471
> seats? Does't make sense to me.
>

More seats CAN be the point of buying an A380 for some airlines. More
SPACE in the same number of seats can be an excellent point of that
investment for another. If you look at SIA, they try to have a
high-class, luxury image. Which of the two options above makes more
sense for their market segment?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bertie,

> Makes
> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
> >

> Because then they wouldn't be able to do this:
>...

You don't really make sense (to me). Care to explain?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Bertie,
>
>> Makes
>> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>> >
>
>> Because then they wouldn't be able to do this:
>>...
>
> You don't really make sense (to me). Care to explain?
>

Did you read the attached? It's pretty much self explanatory.
you can teach someone to push buttons in 70 hours flight time and 180 sim,
but they won;t be able to fly..


And you have to fly a 747 wheras with the A380 you couldn't if oyu wanted
to.

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Could the answer be "freight"? With 471 full seats what is the remaining
payload capability?
Jim

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in
:

> Could the answer be "freight"? With 471 full seats what is the remaining
> payload capability?
> Jim

Nah, it's just a load of beds in first or a full sized badminton court or
some such. they wouldn't be running the #1 bus in a QC or combi config.

Bertie

[[email protected]]

On Oct 15, 7:55 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.

Signapore airlines is known as a premier comfort airline. Odds are
that they have lots of passenger amenities with this seating
configuration...

[Jim Burns[_2_]]

Onboard Olympic sized swimming pool with a swim up bikini bar.
Jim

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Burns" > wrote in
> :
>
> > Could the answer be "freight"? With 471 full seats what is the
remaining
> > payload capability?
> > Jim
>
> Nah, it's just a load of beds in first or a full sized badminton court or
> some such. they wouldn't be running the #1 bus in a QC or combi config.
>
> Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Jim Burns" > wrote in
:

> Onboard Olympic sized swimming pool with a swim up bikini bar.


Kewl.

"The Love Plane"

I still got too much hair to be Capt Stubing, though.

Bertie

[S Green]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 15, 10:11 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> Kingfish,
>>
>> > Makes
>> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>>
>> The seats are different. Very. Wait for the pics.
>
> ???
>
> Does that justify spending bazillions on new aircraft? I thought the
> whole point of A380 was more bodies onboard, then SIA only puts in 471
> seats? Does't make sense to me.
>
As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.

[Jay Honeck]

> As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
> than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
> their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.

I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.

How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
world-wide market?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> "The Love Plane"

I thought Richard Branson was doing that with staterooms in an A380.

[Montblack]

("Jim Burns" wrote)
> Onboard Olympic sized swimming pool with a swim up bikini bar.


I'm seeing more of a wave pool.


Montblack

[Ron Wanttaja]

On Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:32:38 -0500, "Montblack"
> wrote:

> ("Jim Burns" wrote)
> > Onboard Olympic sized swimming pool with a swim up bikini bar.
>
>
> I'm seeing more of a wave pool.

Super-secret video of testing pool testing:

http://www.wanttaja.com/slosh.mpg

:-)

Ron Wanttaja

[xyzzy]

On Oct 15, 9:55 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.

It's a bait and switch. They'll launch the bird with lots of room and
hype to match, then after it gets a reputation as comfortable plane to
fly, they'll quietly add seats until it's closer to th 550 number than
471.

[Blueskies]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message ups.com...
> On Oct 15, 10:11 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> Kingfish,
>>
>> > Makes
>> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>>
>> The seats are different. Very. Wait for the pics.
>
> ???
>
> Does that justify spending bazillions on new aircraft? I thought the
> whole point of A380 was more bodies onboard, then SIA only puts in 471
> seats? Does't make sense to me.
>

Singapore flies less than 350 seats in its 47's: http://www.seatexpert.com/_SQ_Boeing_747_400_V1.html

[Matt Whiting]

Kingfish wrote:
> On Oct 15, 10:11 am, Thomas Borchert >
> wrote:
>> Kingfish,
>>
>>> Makes
>>> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>> The seats are different. Very. Wait for the pics.
>
> ???
>
> Does that justify spending bazillions on new aircraft? I thought the
> whole point of A380 was more bodies onboard, then SIA only puts in 471
> seats? Does't make sense to me.
>

It may if you are riding in one of the seats. I now avoid airline as
much as possible. I will drive 8 hours now to avoid an airline trip.
It is just too uncomfortable now to fly unless you have no alternative.
I believe that an airline with an airplane that brings some comfort
back to long distance travel may well perform better financially.

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Jay Honeck wrote:
>> As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
>> than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
>> their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.
>
> I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>
> How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
> world-wide market?

The offer good service. I realize conventional wisdom in the US has it
that price is everything for for some people it is, but I'll pay more
for comfort ... a lot more. Unfortunately, in the US I can no longer
find it unless I go into first class. I'm not willing to pay 3-4X more,
so I just avoid airline travel and drive if at all possible. However, I
would easily pay 50% more for a decent seat and decent service.

Matt

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

> And you have to fly a 747 wheras with the A380 you couldn't if oyu wanted
> to.

The day is coming, isn't it?

--
Dan

"The future has actually been here for a while, it's just not readily
available to everyone."
- some guy at MIT

[Kyle Boatright]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
>> than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would
>> suspect
>> their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.
>
> I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>
> How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
> world-wide market?
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"

As Matt pointed out, they provide good service. Since they are a Pacific Rim
carrier, they fly long routes and the pax who frequent those routes value an
additional few inches of leg and/or hip room.

As someone who has sat on a two stop, 32 hour flight, I can tell you that
even a little more room makes a world of difference.

KB

[Margy Natalie]

Andrew Sarangan wrote:
> On Oct 15, 7:13 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>
>>Jay Honeck wrote:
>>
>>>>As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
>>>>than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
>>>>their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.
>>
>>>I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>>
>>>How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
>>>world-wide market?
>>
>>The offer good service. I realize conventional wisdom in the US has it
>>that price is everything for for some people it is, but I'll pay more
>>for comfort ... a lot more. Unfortunately, in the US I can no longer
>>find it unless I go into first class. I'm not willing to pay 3-4X more,
>>so I just avoid airline travel and drive if at all possible. However, I
>>would easily pay 50% more for a decent seat and decent service.
>>
>
>
> Actually, it amazes me how much people spend for comfort on seemingly
> fleeting events. A commercial flight only lasts a handful of hours.
> Yet people spend hundreds more to get a first class seat. But they
> think twice about spending that much on their desk, chairs or beds
> where they spend a good fraction of their lives. Last week I was stuck
> at the airport looking to get home. When I checked the phone book for
> taxis, there was an abundance of limos and luxury transportations
> charging sky high prices. Now, why someone needs a limo to get home
> from the airport escapes me, but obviously there is enough demand for
> their services. However, compared to Singapore airlines, the US model
> fits me perfectly. Twenty years ago I was hoping that I could give up
> inflight meals and entertainments for a lower fare, and my wish came
> true. Today, I would even take a plastic bucket seat if the price is
> half, especially on short flights.
>
>
>
Yeah, I sort of think the same, but once we were upgraded to 1st class
(luck and it was cheap) and I could actually get lots of work done. Now
if I flew for business a lot and my time was worth a bit more per hour
than it is I can see how 1st class would make good business sense. If
one is a $200 hr exec flying coast to coast (6 hrs) I can get $1200
worth of work done in 1st and I can't even open my laptop in the back.

Margy

[Kyle Boatright]

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 15, 7:13 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> >> As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10
>> >> years
>> >> than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would
>> >> suspect
>> >> their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.
>>
>> > I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>>
>> > How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
>> > world-wide market?
>>
>> The offer good service. I realize conventional wisdom in the US has it
>> that price is everything for for some people it is, but I'll pay more
>> for comfort ... a lot more. Unfortunately, in the US I can no longer
>> find it unless I go into first class. I'm not willing to pay 3-4X more,
>> so I just avoid airline travel and drive if at all possible. However, I
>> would easily pay 50% more for a decent seat and decent service.
>>
>
> Actually, it amazes me how much people spend for comfort on seemingly
> fleeting events. A commercial flight only lasts a handful of hours.
> Yet people spend hundreds more to get a first class seat. But they
> think twice about spending that much on their desk, chairs or beds
> where they spend a good fraction of their lives. Last week I was stuck
> at the airport looking to get home. When I checked the phone book for
> taxis, there was an abundance of limos and luxury transportations
> charging sky high prices. Now, why someone needs a limo to get home
> from the airport escapes me, but obviously there is enough demand for
> their services. However, compared to Singapore airlines, the US model
> fits me perfectly. Twenty years ago I was hoping that I could give up
> inflight meals and entertainments for a lower fare, and my wish came
> true. Today, I would even take a plastic bucket seat if the price is
> half, especially on short flights.

On short flights, I'd take standing room only. But on long international
routes (like the ones the Pac Rim carriers service), I am willing to pay a
premium for a little more room because those cramped seats become really
uncomfortable for me. And I"m 5'7", 160 lbs. I pity the poor 6'+, 200
pounders who have to spend 8, 10, or 12 hours bottled up in coach class.

[Kingfish]

On Oct 15, 2:44 pm, xyzzy > wrote:
> On Oct 15, 9:55 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>
> > I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> > A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> > I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> > Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> > cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> > their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>
> It's a bait and switch. They'll launch the bird with lots of room and
> hype to match, then after it gets a reputation as comfortable plane to
> fly, they'll quietly add seats until it's closer to th 550 number than
> 471.

*******s...

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:
>
>> And you have to fly a 747 wheras with the A380 you couldn't if oyu
>> wanted to.
>
> The day is coming, isn't it?
>

What, the pilot and dog scenario?


Bertie

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

Kingfish > wrote in news:1192456533.874457.213800
@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:

> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>
>

Saw it just about an hour ago sitting on the northwest side of the field.
It's th efirst one I've seen in anyone's livery.
It's also the first time I've seen one in the dark. They were towing
another one still in Airbus livery along a taxiway. Lit up inside, it
looked weirdly science fictionish with it's two rows of pax windows.

I gotta say it's one dumpy looking airplane.


Bertie

[[email protected]]

>
> I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>
> How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
> world-wide market?
> --

This is a good question that I have wondered about myself and I am not
sure that there is any simple answer. Their service is fantastic and
the prices are not high at all which makes me wonder if the Singapore
govt subsidizes SA in different ways and their profit may not be as
high under the hood when everything is taken into account.. hard to
tell. Image is everything for the Singapore govt and they leave no
stone unturned to project a positive image of their country.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Bertie the Bunyip" wrote:

>> The day is coming, isn't it?
>>
>
> What, the pilot and dog scenario?
>

Yep.


--
Dan

"Relax; we're cops."
-a cop on "Cops"

[xyzzy]

On Oct 15, 1:38 pm, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> > As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
> > than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
> > their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.
>
> I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>
> How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
> world-wide market?

Last year I took a round the world business trip that included a
majority of flights in the Pacific Rim, most of them on Cathay Pacific
(I was on a oneworld ticket, and that alliance doesn't include
Singapore Airlines, which is part of Star Alliance I believe). I also
flew Qantas quite a bit, and a few other local carriers like Dragonair
(which is owned by Cathay Pacific).

The biggies that fly all over the pacific all provide a level of
service that U.S. customers haven't seen for years. However it's not
that fair a comparison because almost all flights on those airlines
are international and very long. Most of these airlines fly mostly
international, while U.S. airlines fly mostly domestic, and it shows
in how they work on both types of flights. The domestic flights in
that region are few and far between and not usually on the flagship
carriers, because most of the countries, except Australia and China,
are too small geographically. The domestic flights I did take, on
Dragonair in China and Qantas in Australia, were not any better or
worse than U.S. domestic flights in my opinion. Qantas is probably
the only major airline in the region that also does a significant
amount of domestic flying and they are pretty good at it, but it ain't
like the international flights that leave Americans raving at how good
airline service in the Asia-Pacific region is. And oh by the way
Qantas is getting its lunch eaten domestically by lower cost, no-
frills domestic airlines.

Anyway, international flights are more profitable than domestic
flights, period. Even the U.S. carriers do well financially on their
international service, which is why they fight so hard for those
routes. So if you're a carrier that flies mostly international,
you'll be doing better than one that flies mostly domestic as a
general rule -- and that describes most major airlines in that part of
the world. Oh, the travel market in that part of the world is booming
anyway.

[Jay Honeck]

> Anyway, international flights are more profitable than domestic
> flights, period.

I think Juan Trippe, of Pan Am fame, discovered that in the 1930s.

> Even the U.S. carriers do well financially on their
> international service, which is why they fight so hard for those
> routes.

Makes me wonder how Pan Am went down in flames. Why didn't they
stick to their international roots?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kyle Boatright" <> wrote
>
> As someone who has sat on a two stop, 32 hour flight, I can tell you that
> even a little more room makes a world of difference.

That is almost beyond my comprehension! What was the flight (and route)
that you flew that had 32 hrs, and 2 stops?
--
Jim in NC

[Morgans[_2_]]

>> It's a bait and switch. They'll launch the bird with lots of room and
>> hype to match, then after it gets a reputation as comfortable plane to
>> fly, they'll quietly add seats until it's closer to th 550 number than
>> 471.
>
> *******s...

I don't think that is a given assumption, or it is not necessarily correct.

As has been stated here, Singapore Air sells luxury seats, and does very
nicely in the profit column doing it, and has been doing it for a while.
--
Jim in NC

[Barney Rubble]

Handful of hours...obviously you have no idea how long the flight from JFK
to Singapore is....

"Andrew Sarangan" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Oct 15, 7:13 pm, Matt Whiting > wrote:
>> Jay Honeck wrote:
>> >> As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10
>> >> years
>> >> than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would
>> >> suspect
>> >> their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.
>>
>> > I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.
>>
>> > How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
>> > world-wide market?
>>
>> The offer good service. I realize conventional wisdom in the US has it
>> that price is everything for for some people it is, but I'll pay more
>> for comfort ... a lot more. Unfortunately, in the US I can no longer
>> find it unless I go into first class. I'm not willing to pay 3-4X more,
>> so I just avoid airline travel and drive if at all possible. However, I
>> would easily pay 50% more for a decent seat and decent service.
>>
>
> Actually, it amazes me how much people spend for comfort on seemingly
> fleeting events. A commercial flight only lasts a handful of hours.
> Yet people spend hundreds more to get a first class seat. But they
> think twice about spending that much on their desk, chairs or beds
> where they spend a good fraction of their lives. Last week I was stuck
> at the airport looking to get home. When I checked the phone book for
> taxis, there was an abundance of limos and luxury transportations
> charging sky high prices. Now, why someone needs a limo to get home
> from the airport escapes me, but obviously there is enough demand for
> their services. However, compared to Singapore airlines, the US model
> fits me perfectly. Twenty years ago I was hoping that I could give up
> inflight meals and entertainments for a lower fare, and my wish came
> true. Today, I would even take a plastic bucket seat if the price is
> half, especially on short flights.
>
>
>

[brtlmj]

> Makes me wonder how Pan Am went down in flames. Why didn't they
> stick to their international roots?

"Domestic" carriers got tired of being feeders for PanAm flights and
started flying internationally themselves. PanAm had to introduce
domestic flights to get passengers to their hubs. Later they got into
financial troubles and sold their best routes to raise money. That's
all gross oversimplification, but you get the picture.

If you want to know more, I recommend "Hard Landing" by Thomas Jr
Petzinger. It's a really good book, I hope the guy writes a sequel
someday.

Bartek

[S Green]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 15, 2:44 pm, xyzzy > wrote:
>> On Oct 15, 9:55 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>>
>> > I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
>> > A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
>> > I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
>> > Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
>> > cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
>> > their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
>> > me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>>
>> It's a bait and switch. They'll launch the bird with lots of room and
>> hype to match, then after it gets a reputation as comfortable plane to
>> fly, they'll quietly add seats until it's closer to th 550 number than
>> 471.
>
> *******s...

One of the biggest growth areas in Europe are flights to the US where the
configuration is all business class i.e. 100 seats in a 767 at well under
normal business class prices.

http://www.flysilverjet.com/?campaign=811

People are a bit fed up with cattle class. Sure it suits some but I have no
sympathy with a 6'6" 250lb guy whinging about there being no room when he
has only paid $200 for a transatlantic ticket.

[S Green]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
.. .
> Kingfish > wrote in news:1192456533.874457.213800
> @i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
>> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
>> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
>> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
>> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
>> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
>> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>>
>>
>
> Saw it just about an hour ago sitting on the northwest side of the field.
> It's th efirst one I've seen in anyone's livery.
> It's also the first time I've seen one in the dark. They were towing
> another one still in Airbus livery along a taxiway. Lit up inside, it
> looked weirdly science fictionish with it's two rows of pax windows.
>
> I gotta say it's one dumpy looking airplane.
>
>
> Bertie

But not when its in the air. Then it looks good.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 16, 2:02 pm, "S Green" > wrote:
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in 6.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Kingfish > wrote in news:1192456533.874457.213800
> > @i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> >> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> >> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by
> >> Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max density seating aka
> >> cattle truck) I realize every airline will configure the plane to fit
> >> their own needs, but that sounds like a big drop in seat count. Makes
> >> me wonder why they didn't just buy more 747-400s.
>
> > Saw it just about an hour ago sitting on the northwest side of the field.
> > It's th efirst one I've seen in anyone's livery.
> > It's also the first time I've seen one in the dark. They were towing
> > another one still in Airbus livery along a taxiway. Lit up inside, it
> > looked weirdly science fictionish with it's two rows of pax windows.
>
> > I gotta say it's one dumpy looking airplane.
>
> > Bertie
>
> But not when its in the air. Then it looks good.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Looks like a fat lady on the ground, and in the air, looks like a fat
lady on a trampoline!

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"S Green" > wrote in
:

>
> "Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> Kingfish > wrote in
>> news:1192456533.874457.213800 @i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its
>>> first A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471
>>> seats, which I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has
>>> been pitched by Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax max
>>> density seating aka cattle truck) I realize every airline will
>>> configure the plane to fit their own needs, but that sounds like a
>>> big drop in seat count. Makes me wonder why they didn't just buy
>>> more 747-400s.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Saw it just about an hour ago sitting on the northwest side of the
>> field. It's th efirst one I've seen in anyone's livery.
>> It's also the first time I've seen one in the dark. They were towing
>> another one still in Airbus livery along a taxiway. Lit up inside, it
>> looked weirdly science fictionish with it's two rows of pax windows.
>>
>> I gotta say it's one dumpy looking airplane.
>>
>>
>> Bertie
>
> But not when its in the air. Then it looks good.

Saw one as I was leaving, It's never going ot be a Constellation.
Best we can hope for is someone will marry it for it's money.


Bertie
>
>
>

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

"S Green" > wrote in
:

>
> "Kingfish" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> On Oct 15, 2:44 pm, xyzzy > wrote:
>>> On Oct 15, 9:55 am, Kingfish > wrote:
>>>
>>> > I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its
>>> > first A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471
>>> > seats, which I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity
>>> > has been pitched by Airbus since day one (never mind the 800-pax
>>> > max density seating aka cattle truck) I realize every airline will
>>> > configure the plane to fit their own needs, but that sounds like a
>>> > big drop in seat count. Makes me wonder why they didn't just buy
>>> > more 747-400s.
>>>
>>> It's a bait and switch. They'll launch the bird with lots of room
>>> and hype to match, then after it gets a reputation as comfortable
>>> plane to fly, they'll quietly add seats until it's closer to th 550
>>> number than 471.
>>
>> *******s...
>
> One of the biggest growth areas in Europe are flights to the US where
> the configuration is all business class i.e. 100 seats in a 767 at
> well under normal business class prices.
>
> http://www.flysilverjet.com/?campaign=811
>
> People are a bit fed up with cattle class. Sure it suits some but I
> have no sympathy with a 6'6" 250lb guy whinging about there being no
> room when he has only paid $200 for a transatlantic ticket.
>
>
>


I think they're using 75's actually.

Some very old ones at that!

Bertie

[Kyle Boatright]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Kyle Boatright" <> wrote
>>
>> As someone who has sat on a two stop, 32 hour flight, I can tell you that
>> even a little more room makes a world of difference.
>
> That is almost beyond my comprehension! What was the flight (and route)
> that you flew that had 32 hrs, and 2 stops?
> --
> Jim in NC

NYC - Anchorage - Seoul, Korea - Auckland, NZ

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Kyle Boatright" > wrote
>
> NYC - Anchorage - Seoul, Korea - Auckland, NZ

Wow! -That- is *indeed* a flight!
--
Jim in NC

[James Sleeman]

On Oct 16, 2:55 am, Kingfish > wrote:
> I read about Singapore Airlines taking delivery (finally) of its first
> A380. The article said the plane was configured with 471 seats, which
> I found odd seeing as the plane's 550-pax capacity has been pitched by

Qantas is going with even less, just 450, but here is your answer -
mega luxury (with mega cost to be sure, but there are lots of very
very wealthy people travelling on the singapore airlines routes)

From: http://www.stuff.co.nz/4239874a34.html

Luxury, at least for those travelling in their own first-class
sleeping cabins, will take to the skies when Singapore Airlines flies
the double-decker Airbus A380 into Sydney next week for the first
time.

The key to the cabins on the world's newest passenger plane, Singapore
Airlines boasts, is the separate seat and bed - replete with designer
quilt.

Singapore Airline also boasts that the sleeping suite can be
transformed into a stylish office, with its 57.5-centimetre platinum
screen and workstation.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>
> Saw one as I was leaving, It's never going ot be a Constellation.
> Best we can hope for is someone will marry it for it's money.


The curved Dreamliner lines may give the Connie a short run for her
money. The Connie will still win... <G>

The A380 wasn't ugly when I saw it in low cruise, but it wasn't pretty
either, just BIG.

[Bertie the Bunyip[_19_]]

B A R R Y > wrote in news:P5mRi.8664$6p6.2632
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
>>
>> Saw one as I was leaving, It's never going ot be a Constellation.
>> Best we can hope for is someone will marry it for it's money.
>
>
> The curved Dreamliner lines may give the Connie a short run for her
> money. The Connie will still win... <G>
>
> The A380 wasn't ugly when I saw it in low cruise, but it wasn't pretty
> either, just BIG.
>

Yeah, fromthe terminal, about a mile away form where they have them parked,
it doesn't look so big. Until you notice the dinky toy parked next to it is
a 340....


Bertie

[JGalban via AviationKB.com]

Bertie the Bunyip wrote:

>
>I gotta say it's one dumpy looking airplane.
>

Speaking of dumpy, I was flying over Evergreen's facility in Central AZ
last Saturday and spotted this behemoth called Dream Lifter.

http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/flynrider/Dream1.jpg

Wonder how many seats you could get in that one.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

--
Message posted via http://www.aviationkb.com

[S Green]

"Bertie the Bunyip" > wrote in message ne>>
>
>
> I think they're using 75's actually.
>
> Some very old ones at that!

Quoted from their website "we fly a small fleet of 767’s in a one class
configuration"

[Kingfish]

On Oct 17, 1:35 pm, "JGalban via AviationKB.com" <u32749@uwe> wrote:

> Speaking of dumpy, I was flying over Evergreen's facility in Central AZ
> last Saturday and spotted this behemoth called Dream Lifter.
>
> http://i112.photobucket.com/albums/n178/flynrider/Dream1.jpg
>
> Wonder how many seats you could get in that one.
>

Must... resist... making... Jenny... Craig... joke...