First A380 delivery

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

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

"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

"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

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

"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.

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...

"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

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

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.