A380's

[jacko 8,578]

 

Then someone brings out the fact that they are leased and all kinds of other reasons, but the first reason did and still does not make sense.

There are many likely reasons...

 

Leasing cost....reports say that airlines typically pay an average of $1.7 million a month for the privilege of having an A380 in their fleet.

 

Brendan Sobie, an analyst at CAPA Center for Aviation, expects Singapore Airlines to return all five of the early A380 jets in its fleet. "Their fleet plan and strategy has always been to replace those aircraft. Early model airplanes come with limitations and Singapore Airlines never wanted to be stuck with remarketing these five airplanes," Mr. Sobie said.

 

The A380's size has become its disadvantage as airlines prefer relatively smaller planes such as the Airbus A350 and rival Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner that can fly nonstop to their ultimate destinations, bypassing major hubs such as London and Singapore. The demand for point-to-point connectivity has grown faster than the traffic at major hub airports in recent years.

 

SQs older 777-200 and 200ERs will be replaced by the A350-900

 

 

What the airline says in a public statement may not fully be what prompted the decision behind closed doors. I believe from what we have discussed that SQs original decision to lease these aircraft, rather than buy them, is looking like a good one. And here we are, 11 years later, and they are carrying through with what was likely their original plan. A bit of guesswork on my part, my experience of buying $370,000,000 items is rather limited.

Edited October 17, 2017 by jacko

[MrMango 655]

There are many likely reasons...

 

Leasing cost....reports say that airlines typically pay an average of $1.7 million a month for the privilege of having an A380 in their fleet.

 

Brendan Sobie, an analyst at CAPA Center for Aviation, expects Singapore Airlines to return all five of the early A380 jets in its fleet. "Their fleet plan and strategy has always been to replace those aircraft. Early model airplanes come with limitations and Singapore Airlines never wanted to be stuck with remarketing these five airplanes," Mr. Sobie said.

 

The A380's size has become its disadvantage as airlines prefer relatively smaller planes such as the Airbus A350 and rival Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner that can fly nonstop to their ultimate destinations, bypassing major hubs such as London and Singapore. The demand for point-to-point connectivity has grown faster than the traffic at major hub airports in recent years.

 

SQs older 777-200 and 200ERs will be replaced by the A350-900

 

 

What the airline says in a public statement may not fully be what prompted the decision behind closed doors. I believe from what we have discussed that SQs original decision to lease these aircraft, rather than buy them, is looking like a good one. And here we are, 11 years later, and they are carrying through with what was likely their original plan. A bit of guesswork on my part, my experience of buying $370,000,000 items is rather limited.

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.

[TheFiend 1,168]

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.

 

 

 

Planespotters.net lists 17 A380's in service with the latest delivered being 9V-SKT in 2012.

[Goldpanner 399]

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.

Fuck off you argumentative retard. stop trying to cover up your stupidity. READ WHAT I POSTED before you try and justify your utter stupidity. READ THE SQ PUBLICITY BLURBS. I never said anything about "taking them out of service to lower their average age." . You made that statement up in a desperate attempt to cover up your stupidity.

 

Here's what I said in my OP. " I also note SQ are 'retiring' their 5 oldest A380's. I wonder who's going to buy them?. " THAT sir is common knowledge.

 

Dont warp what I said to justify your stupidity.

Edited October 17, 2017 by TheFiend
removed profanity

[TheFiend 1,168]

There are many likely reasons...

 

Leasing cost....reports say that airlines typically pay an average of $1.7 million a month for the privilege of having an A380 in their fleet.

 

Brendan Sobie, an analyst at CAPA Center for Aviation, expects Singapore Airlines to return all five of the early A380 jets in its fleet. "Their fleet plan and strategy has always been to replace those aircraft. Early model airplanes come with limitations and Singapore Airlines never wanted to be stuck with remarketing these five airplanes," Mr. Sobie said.

 

The A380's size has become its disadvantage as airlines prefer relatively smaller planes such as the Airbus A350 and rival Boeing Co.'s 787 Dreamliner that can fly nonstop to their ultimate destinations, bypassing major hubs such as London and Singapore. The demand for point-to-point connectivity has grown faster than the traffic at major hub airports in recent years.

 

SQs older 777-200 and 200ERs will be replaced by the A350-900

 

 

What the airline says in a public statement may not fully be what prompted the decision behind closed doors. I believe from what we have discussed that SQs original decision to lease these aircraft, rather than buy them, is looking like a good one. And here we are, 11 years later, and they are carrying through with what was likely their original plan. A bit of guesswork on my part, my experience of buying $370,000,000 items is rather limited.

 

It might be surprising but 2 of the top longest non-stop flights are currently operated by A380 .

 

Doha-Aukland Qatar A380

Sydney-Dallas Qantas A380

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

 

Plenty of A380's flying into Heathrow from Australia, Asia and the Middle East if my eyes are not deceiving me.

[jacko 8,578]

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.

Well in reality, take out an 11 year old aircraft and replace it with a new one will reduce the average age!

So not a false statement, just one you seem to be struggling to accept.

[short 215]

Perhaps it is full of cargo!

 

Thanks Captain Obvious!!

 

My question implied that there would be no non-passenger cargo. Only luggage

[MrMango 655]

Well in reality, take out an 11 year old aircraft and replace it with a new one will reduce the average age!

So not a false statement, just one you seem to be struggling to accept.

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.

[TheFiend 1,168]

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.

 

Yes but these are leased airframes, rather than owned, and the older 777's are about to be replaced with A350's and Nightmareliners, so the average age will be dropping anyway.

[MrMango 655]

 

Yes but these are leased airframes, rather than owned, and the older 777's are about to be replaced with A350's and Nightmareliners, so the average age will be dropping anyway.

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.

[jacko 8,578]

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.

The main reason was perhaps to reduce leasing cost or improve on the airlines overall efficiency or get rid of an old design aircraft!

 

Your original contention was the A380 must be 'unreliable' and you even claimed they were scrapping it!

Perhaps United will buy it to lower the average age of their fleet!

 

 

.

[MrMango 655]

The main reason was perhaps to reduce leasing cost or improve on the airlines overall efficiency or get rid of an old design aircraft!

 

Your original contention was the A380 must be 'unreliable' and you even claimed they were scrapping it!

Perhaps United will buy it to lower the average age of their fleet!

 

 

I never said that

[jacko 8,578]

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?

[MrMango 655]

 

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?

 

This is what you posted:

 

Your original contention was the A380 must be 'unreliable'

 

Which is not what I said.

[nkped 1,207]

While I lean "If it ain't Boeing, I'm not going," this is getting ridiculous.

[Goldpanner 399]

I'm afraid Mango has seriously lost the plot.

 

My mantra now is, "if it is a Boeing I aint going" (with respect to the Dreamliner mainly.)

[jacko 8,578]

This is what you posted:

 

Your original contention was the A380 must be 'unreliable'

 

Which is not what I said.

Whatever......

Edited October 19, 2017 by jacko

[Bob Belzy 150]

I'm afraid Mango has seriously lost the plot.

 

My mantra now is, "if it is a Boeing I aint going" (with respect to the Dreamliner mainly.)

 

It must have taken years for him to develop such stupidity. Such things don't happen overnight.

[nkped 1,207]

I'm afraid Mango has seriously lost the plot.

 

My mantra now is, "if it is a Boeing I aint going" (with respect to the Dreamliner mainly.)

One flight (well, actually two flights) is one flight, but had a very pleasant trip across the Pacific in August on JAL 787s. I like the darkening windows as opposed to window shades. It's a very quiet aircraft. I went to sleep while we were taxiing out at Narita. When I woke up, I wasn't certain we were airborne until I looked at the tracking map.

[TheFiend 1,168]

One flight (well, actually two flights) is one flight, but had a very pleasant trip across the Pacific in August on JAL 787s. I like the darkening windows as opposed to window shades. It's a very quiet aircraft. I went to sleep while we were taxiing out at Narita. When I woke up, I wasn't certain we were airborne until I looked at the tracking map.

 

Try a Qatar Nightmareliner.... flights on those are torture!!! Unfortunately I have to suffer them out of MAN,

[jacko 8,578]

 

Try a Qatar Nightmareliner.... flights on those are torture!!! Unfortunately I have to suffer them out of MAN,

Now now, if you will crush in the back you get what you deserve.

My flight was very nice and the tinted windows gave a very nice atmosphere on boarding.

 

 

[Fireman Sam 336]

Now now, if you will crush in the back you get what you deserve.

My flight was very nice and the tinted windows gave a very nice atmosphere on boarding.

 

 

787-1.jpg

787-2.jpg

Even in business jacko I found the leg room down at your toes wasn’t the best. I preferred their 777 business offering over their 787 or A380, all down to seat design I suppose.

 

 

 

Regards

[jacko 8,578]

Even in business jacko I found the leg room down at your toes wasn’t the best. I preferred their 777 business offering over their 787 or A380, all down to seat design I suppose.

 

 

 

Regards

Their A380 biz is the bees knees to me.

777s are just showing their age, last time I used one in Biz, Emirates, it was the old style side by side seating not herringbone. Noisy rattling aircraft too, really poor compared to A380.

[TheFiend 1,168]

Now now, if you will crush in the back you get what you deserve.

My flight was very nice and the tinted windows gave a very nice atmosphere on boarding.

 

 

MrsFiend won't let me waste money on Biz class tickets for us......

 

She enjoyed the Biz class experience when we got an upgrade, but she doesn't think it's worth the extra money.....

 

We fly on QR836 into BKK on the 1st of November and it's down as being an A380...... but for the last few weeks A340-600's have been on it.....I'm hoping that if the A380 is swapped off it that I get to fly the A340 instead of a 777.... Fingers crossed it will be an A380 or A340-600...