Late last year Singapore Airlines announced they'd be discontinuing the two longest flights in the world, operating between Singapore and Newark/Los Angeles. The service will terminate later this year, and the reason for the flights being axed is that Singapore is retiring their A340-500 aircraft, the only ones in their fleet capable of operating those…
Continue reading: Delta eying nonstop service to Singapore?
Share your questions, experiences, and thoughts below.
This would be like going from a chaffer driven Mercedes S-Class to a Greyhound bus.
Delta would be the last airline I would fly nonstop from the US to Singapore. If flying to Asia from the US I always try to fly Asian airlines since even their coach service beats business class service on US airlines.
The rotation would require at least 3 airplanes to operate with competitive timing. With no widebodies scheduled for delivery in the next few years, DL would have to cancel or downgauge existing routes to get the aircraft time to operate the trip. I'm saying no to this one, just like the rumored SEA/JFK-HKG flights. Of course, this could change if the DL/VS joint venture results in a major rationalization of LHR capacity. Moving some of the DL LHR frequencies to VS metal could create a cascade effect opening up some 777 time, but I'm not holding my breath.
Product offering aside, I think the only reason one would take DL to SIN (or even BKK) is to chase DL status (since SkyPesos have been devalued so much). DL's arrival and departure times to these cities are simply too inconvenient. Taking, for example, CX through HKG, one could arrive in SIN in time for a drink before bed, vs. getting to the hotel at 2:30-3:00 am. And returning to the US, one could actually have an early breakfast at the hotel, instead of waking up in the middle of the night to catch a 5:30 am flight.
I think this is a doable route for delta. To obtain the routes will take a year-plus, but I think that if delta can configure a 777-2LR for the route, they can capitalize on the gap left by Singapore. Also, leaving out of JFK may add marginally more connecting passengers.
To say that most Asian carriers' economic service beats US intl business class service is just ridiculous.
If anyone is curious what the top 30 longest flights are, read this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-stop_flight#Currently_scheduled_.28top_30.2C_by_distance.29
@Gene--actually, I don't know that DL flies any 777's to LHR. Looking at today's schedule, for example, they have 9 flights to LHR (3x ATL, 3x JFK, 1x BOS, 1x DTW, and 1x MSP), and 6 of those are 764's, and 3 are 763's. I think that's pretty typical. So VS bearing more of the load really wouldn't open anything up in terms of the 777 fleet.
"We have clearly differentiated ourselves from other US carriers. We want to compete head to head with the Asian carriers."
Yeah, good luck with that Delta. :-
SQ would love to keep the ULH but the A340-500 are just too thirsty: If you google the topic, the 772LR obviously burns 20% less fuel for the adjusted same payload. I was told that SQ burns 1,500kg of fuel per pax on SIN-EWR - that's 1,500 USD just in fuel cost each way...
@ SMK77 -- Agreed, though I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that Singapore didn't pick up a few 777-200LRs to operate this service long term if they saw potential in it. They're such a leader and average fleet age is so low that I just figured it would've been a given.
@DW - The late arrival and early departure times are due to the connecting bank structure in NRT. If DL tried SIN non-stop, ideally the times would be at better times, since you don't have to worry about the NRT connections.
@ DiscoPapa -- Right, with their current route structure to Singapore Delta doesn't have a choice, but I think if they want a chance at gaining any market share they'll have to have more conveniently timed flights.
Hi lucky
This link and the comments gives some reasons why SQ stuck to an A345. (my summary below)
One reason was that with a 1-2-1 layout in full C, there wasn't much more seats/(suites?) you could put in a B77L because it wasn't much longer (although wider).
Another reason was that the A345 could fly at reasonable high altitudes on 3 engines (> FL320, while a B77L could only do 260). This poses some issues, such as in increased fuel burns necessitating a diversion instead of flying on to the original destination, and being unable to fly across regions like the himalayas en route to europe from asia, because the peaks are higher than FL200.
The reason why they don't pick up new planes is that they can't get them for free. I am taking that they basically got the 345 for free. Now that they are just so unprofitable, they are using their right to return the 5 jets to Airbus (who is likely to retire them).
The Wiki's top 30 flight list is missing a few currently scheduled commercial flights. Two came to my mind that I flew recently: IAD-PEK and JNB-PEK
@ UA_Flyer -- Both of the flights that you mention are shorter than the 7,488 mi LAX-SYD route that currently is 30th on the list. IAD-PEK is 6,921 mi and JNB-PEK is 7,269 mi.