First A380 delivery

"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"

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.

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"

"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

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

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.

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

"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.

"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.

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!