MrMango

I understand that of course, but the post implied that the 380's were being replaced to lower the fleet age, which apparently was not the main reason.

No problems here understanding that, but you seem to have stuck in your craw the obvious - If you want to lower your fleet age, take your oldest birds out of service, not one that is near the mean age.

That makes sense to me too. The 380 is a white elephant as evidenced by the dismal sales and acceptance. But that does not explain the reason of the OP that they were taking them out of service to lower their average age. That obviously was a false statement.

First, I apologize for calling you that, I try to be civil to non trolls, but I got carried away. Second, I have no idea of the accuracy of the wiki chart, but your's have a few problems too. It shows the last delivery of bird 9V SSK in July of 2010 with a total of 9 380's in service. http://www.abcdlist.nl/a380f/a380f.html This site shows a total of 19 active 380's to SQ with the last one delivered on February 2013 so somthing is wrong with the references. If that is the case, then the fleet age of the 380 is in fact, much younger than 7.8 years.

Ok, sorry to let me take my frustrations out and I will be civil. My first comment was in response to the statement that they were taking the 380's out of service to keep thier fleet young, and had nothing to do about the 380 and it's profitability. That makes no sense. The average fleet age of the 380's is about 8 years, and they have a bunch of 777 that have an age of almost 12 years. The obvious way to make your fleet younger is to take the oldest birds out of service, not the mid life birds. Then someone brings out the fact that they are leased and all kinds of other reasons,

I am reluctant to call a moderator an asshole, but you really are. Pray tell how you thought that I did not research their fleet age? Did you think I pulled them out of my ass? https://www.google.com/search?safe=off&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS732US732&q=singapore+airlines+fleet+age&oq=siignpoer+airlines+fleet+age&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0i13k1j0i8i13i30k1.29174.38598.0.41282.16.16.0.0.0.0.168.1851.0j13.13.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..3.7.1011....0.n-byhq1Ty6I Singapore Airlines fleet details Aircraft Number Age Airbus A380 17 7.9 years Boeing 747 7

Bullshit. The original argument was that they were retiring them becase they were too old and wanted to keep their fleet young, and I pointed out that the 747 average age in the fleet was about twice as old.

Getting rid of leased 10 year old birds in favour of brand new ones and buying 30 new 787-10 aircraft sounds like a strong effort to modernise. If you suggest keeping a 10 year old A380 and getting rid of a 14 year old 747-7 you are not appreciating their demographics. First, I have no idea if the 787's are leased or bought, second, if you are going to modernise, why would you get rid of the youngest birds by type in the fleet? They have 747's that must be decades old, why not replace them? Actually amused by your figures above....here is a figure for United Boeing 747 12 21.8 years

Ok, Let me apologize - I did not realize that they leased the birds, so they are returning them at the end of the lease. But if they were that great, one would think that they would be eager to extend the lease..... As for the age of the fleet, you are a bit wrong - Here is the average age of their types of birds: Singapore Airlines fleet details: Aircraft Number Age Airbus A380 17 7.9 years Boeing 747 7 13.9 years Boeing 777 53 11.3 years TOTAL 116 8.2 years So they are retiring the youngest

Is this post a windup? From what you posted, it has been a disaster! SQ received its first bird 10 years ago, and now they are scrapping it and you call that reliable?

As I remember, he was voted the Les Echmount (sp) award by his fellow players so that is not very divisive.

OK they may be able to break the rules, but they will get caught sooner or later. Then they will be repercussions.

My reply was a direct answer to a question, which I answered, and slots had nothing to do with the qeuestion.

I was in the airplane brokerage business and one of my partners was an Americans Airlines pilot and as I remember, there was a regulation that said only certain things could cause cancellations, and low bookings at flight times was not one of them. He had just completed a coast to coast flight with about 10 passengers, so I asked him why didn't they just cancel it, and he stated that they could not do that.

As I remember, that is against regulations.

The so called "noise restrictions" were generic, and it forced an entire class of ships to not fly in the US. The restrictions were far more than the sonic boom.

Ok, but in hindsight, London, Paris to JFK and Washington DC, were the ONLY route that ever made economic sense.

Actually it was not the Feds who blocked it, but the owners who owned JFK who insisted that they and all others, follow the law with noise suppression, and it was published years in advance. And now you seem to agree with me that the only route that made sense was London paris - JFK? Who would say that a multi billion US$ development for only one route makes a great bird?

I saw it too a few days ago. They have a design that will mitigate the "boom" with something much less offensive, and have been testing it in wind tunnels now.

Thanks for the anonymous source. As I noted, I did take it to Dallas a few times. And the other routs must have been for a short period as they were discounted shortly becase I assume they were not money makers. The delay on the JFK rout was becase the JFK owners refused, and it had nothing to do with the feds. The end result is what I opined, it was a dog of a ship, didn't hold much and had no legs, and the only route that made economic sense was London, Paris to JFK and Dulles. Boeing had nothing to do with that.

That is your opinion, not a usual reference source.

Ok, but exactly what is a "historical scheduled service? To my knowledge, they NEVER had regular service on the Caracas, Mexico City, Rio routes. And of course, other than the Mexico route, they had nothing to do with the US. BTW, I did fly Braniff to Dallas on the bird a few times....

Really? Can you give me a source for that? As I remember JFK was a initial destination for it. And the space shuttle boom is not relevant, as military and other government airplanes are exempt from any booms. And I do not remember ANY scheduled flights from the continent to Rio.

I am not defending anybody. All I did is post facts why it failed, and it had nothing to do with Boeing.

Why cannot you face reality? Concorde killed Concorde. It was a tiny ship and my head almost hit the ceiling when I boarded, It burned a huge amount of fuel so it had no legs. There was a reason it never flew scheduled routes other than London, Paris and new York Washington as that was the ONLY one that made economic sense. Boeing had nothing to do with that