Singapore Airlines operates a fleet of seven Airbus A350-900ULRs, which are the longest range aircraft in the world. The airline uses these jets to operate its longest flights, including from Singapore (SIN) to New York (JFK), Newark (EWR), and San Francisco (SFO).
The Star Alliance carrier will soon be taking some of these jets out of service for maintenance. This raises an interesting question as to whether there might be a bit more to this…
In this post:
Singapore Airlines reducing A350-900ULR flights
Singapore Airlines took delivery of its A350-900ULRs back in 2018. It’s normal for aircraft to need heavy maintenance every so often, and in the case of these jets, it’s every six years. With that in mind, Singapore Airlines is preparing to reduce its A350-900ULR schedule, to reflect that only six of these seven jets will be in service at any given time.
As reported by Mainly Miles, between May 1, 2024, and January 31, 2025, Singapore Airlines will reduce frequencies with these jets on some of its longest flights. The airline will maintain daily flights from Singapore to both New York and Newark, but will make changes to its A350-900ULR network otherwise:
- During this nine month period, Singapore Airlines will replace 7x weekly A350-900ULR flights to San Francisco with A350-900s
- During this nine month period, Singapore Airlines will replace 3x weekly A350-900 flights to Los Angeles with A350-900ULRs
As you can see, these A350-900ULRs will go from operating 21x weekly flights to operating 17x weekly flights. The airline has confirmed that these planes will undergo scheduled maintenance during this period. There’s nothing really surprising here, though there is some interesting speculation out there that I figured would be fun to discuss.
Will Singapore Airlines update its A350-900ULR cabins?
In July 2023, Executive Traveller reported that Singapore Airlines planned to reconfigure its A350-900ULRs. No source was shared for this information, but it was passed off as fact rather than conjecture.
Keep in mind that when heavy maintenance is performed on aircraft, it includes essentially stripping the entire interior of a plane, and then reinstalling it. When you combine these factors, one has to wonder if these two things might be connected.
If Singapore Airlines is planning updates to its A350-900ULR cabins, and if the airline is performing heavy maintenance on these jets, then it would be totally logical to complete both projects at once.
For context, Singapore Airlines’ A350-900ULRs are in a super premium configuration, with just 161 seats, including 67 business class seats and 94 premium economy seats.
If Singapore Airlines were to update its A350-900ULRs, what kind of changes could we see (and again, this is a huge “if,” and is purely speculation)?
It’s possible that Singapore Airlines maintains the same seats, but just changes the breakdown of the seats in each cabin. It’s my understanding that business class tends to sell better than premium economy, so could the airline be making the business class cabin bigger, and making the premium economy cabin smaller?
For that matter, could we see Singapore Airlines introduce first class on these jets? It seems like the airline might be able to generate more revenue by reducing the size of premium economy and introducing a small first class cabin, as I’m sure there would be some demand for that.
The other potential scenario is that the airline might finally introduce a new business class product on these jets. There has long been talk of Singapore Airlines introducing a new business class seat, and that was initially supposed to debut on 777-9s as of 2020. However, with that jet having been delayed by at least five years, could Singapore Airlines finally be debuting this cabin on the A350-900ULR instead?
It’s anyone’s guess how this plays out, but I do think there’s a good chance the A350-900ULRs don’t return from maintenance looking exactly the same as they did when they went in. For what it’s worth, Singapore Airlines has a history of only announcing the details of cabin updates shortly before the planes are ready to enter service (Lufthansa could learn a thing or two).
Bottom line
Singapore Airlines will soon be performing maintenance on its Airbus A350-900ULRs, which are used to operate the world’s longest flights. For a period of nine months, Singapore Airlines will reduce its A350-900ULR schedule, so that one plane can be out of service at a time.
While Singapore Airlines claims that this is just to perform routine maintenance, one can’t help but wonder if we might see some other updates to these cabins, whether it’s a change to the cabin layout, or the introduction of a new business class.
Do you think Singapore Airlines will just perform A350-900ULR maintenance, or do you think we’ll see some material changes to the cabins?
Please give economy class passengers more leg room on long haul flights.
"We have. It's called Economy Plus, and Premium Economy. We've even made it so easy to access, you can do it from your smartphone."
~signed,
Airlines.
Can't say I'm surprised that Premium Economy isn't selling as well, who would want to be in economy (of any kind!) for almost 19 hours? For most of the A340-500s' time on the flight, they were in an all-Business configuration, and Singapore seemed to be content with that. Wouldn't be surprised if that configuration returns.
The all-J A340 config was driven more by performance limitations of the A340 than by demand. Demand wasn't all that great, which is why they dropped the route entirely for a good while before the A350ULR became available.
I hope they install First on these aircraft because SIA only has Business and lower without a connection from my home airport. It’s meaningless to us to have to connect twice going to Asia so we don’t really consider SIA as an option.
Seems like bloggers are reading too much into this. However, if they indeed are doing a cabin retrofit, a big consideration would likely be saving weight for efficiency on these ultra long haul routes. So maybe they will switch out seats for a new, lower weight product.
With some weight savings, and since premium economy isn't selling as well, perhaps they are looking to add economy seating. This would allow them to better price...
Seems like bloggers are reading too much into this. However, if they indeed are doing a cabin retrofit, a big consideration would likely be saving weight for efficiency on these ultra long haul routes. So maybe they will switch out seats for a new, lower weight product.
With some weight savings, and since premium economy isn't selling as well, perhaps they are looking to add economy seating. This would allow them to better price discriminate, making these long premium routes even more profitable. It would obviously still be an extremely premium heavy configuration, but a small economy section would likely actually help PE sales.
Very doubtful. Among the other reasons is that whenever there's an IRROP or unscheduled mtx on the NYC-SIN nonstops, they can swap one of their standard 280tonne aircraft (9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, or any of the 9V-SJ* series) to cover the route for them, by only filling the J and W segments of these aircraft and leaving the Y cabin empty.
That's in fact how they launched SIN-JFK, before eventually placing the -ULRs on the...
Very doubtful. Among the other reasons is that whenever there's an IRROP or unscheduled mtx on the NYC-SIN nonstops, they can swap one of their standard 280tonne aircraft (9V-SMV, -SMW, -SMY, -SMZ, or any of the 9V-SJ* series) to cover the route for them, by only filling the J and W segments of these aircraft and leaving the Y cabin empty.
That's in fact how they launched SIN-JFK, before eventually placing the -ULRs on the route, and they still sub it out that way if needed. They can also swap out an SFO frequency.
Selling economy would throw a wrench in that system, in exchange for not much gain.
It is possible bloggers are making too much out of this but as Ben notes, if you have to strip an aircraft down to the fuselage including the cabin, it makes sense to evaluate if it is worth putting the airplane back together as it was before. You can upgrade the cabin but most airlines use a major overhaul (if that is what is happening) to redo the cabins.
if they take out the interiors...
It is possible bloggers are making too much out of this but as Ben notes, if you have to strip an aircraft down to the fuselage including the cabin, it makes sense to evaluate if it is worth putting the airplane back together as it was before. You can upgrade the cabin but most airlines use a major overhaul (if that is what is happening) to redo the cabins.
if they take out the interiors on their current ULRs, refurbish the seats, and send them back to Airbus for installation on a new A350, they aren't paying much more than the cost of refurbishing the cabin. And they could upgrade the seats in the process.
As I noted below, the A350ULRs are not the most capable A350-900s anymore. The A350-1000 is even more capable but SQ doesn't have them on order or in its fleet. SQ does have more capable A350-900s on order.
One option might be for SQ to use its newest A350s coming from Airbus as the basis for the aircraft for its premium configured aircraft for the NYC-SIN flights. It is doubtful that a -900 could carry more than 225 passengers on NYC-SIN so they are still likely going to go with a premium configuration but could also use their standard 253 seat version and just block seats. Either way, they can carry about 40-50 more passengers on their newest A350-900s than they could carry on their ULRs. It makes sense to re-evaluate how to continue to operate that route and potentially move it to a newer aircraft.
They likely chose 160 seats on the ULR as what they could carry on the NYC-SIN route(s) and not what is optimal from a revenue generation standpoint. While they can fill seats, they probably discount the last few seats in each cabin more than they would like.
Also, the newest A350s have more cabin space for several reasons including because Airbus moved the rear pressure bulkhead backward which allows 2 lavs to be put behind the rear set of doors and opening up more cabin space. They also made modifications to the front galley which opens up more cabin space. Finally, the newest A350s have 4" wider cabins due to thinner sidewalls so SQ could change the spacing on seats in order to create more comfort which is most valuable on longer haul aircraft.
The ULRs rack up lots of hours but few takeoffs and landings. Getting the most use out of those airframes might involve repositioning them for part of their life to some shorter flights - which SQ has plenty of within Asia.
Just off the Ewr flight yesterday... Got lots of sleep... Just wish Ewr had a better gate as a star alliance partner, connections in either direction are a pain in the ass.
I may be a bit fried, but how can 7 ULRs be used to operate 21x weekly frequencies? The math in the article does not add up for me.
3 routes, 2 planes each, 1 for the SFO/LAX switch
These flights are operating 19 hour sectors. With prep and turn around, you are at a good 22-24 hr utilization in each direction.
Given that SQ has not expanded their F cabins but rather shrunk them from 8 to 6 seats on the A380s and kept them the same size at just 4 seats on the 777 (as well as shifted from A380 to 777 on the SIN-FRA-JFK route), I think it's highly unlikely that they see the demand for 3x the number of daily F seats in New York. Additionally, SQ doesn't fly any F to SFO...
Given that SQ has not expanded their F cabins but rather shrunk them from 8 to 6 seats on the A380s and kept them the same size at just 4 seats on the 777 (as well as shifted from A380 to 777 on the SIN-FRA-JFK route), I think it's highly unlikely that they see the demand for 3x the number of daily F seats in New York. Additionally, SQ doesn't fly any F to SFO and has similarly pulled back the A380 to a 777 on the SIN-NRT-LAX route over time. There's nothing to suggest that they see tons of unserved F demand on the route. Let's stop daydreaming and go back to reality...
I'd be surprised if they couldn't fill a single row of 1-1-1 on one of the most premium routes in the world. There'd certainly be demand out of SFO too from big tech execs.
There's a physical reason why they didn't put F on those aircraft, initially.
During certification, Airbus believed that the increased fuel volume (much was offered by modifying the oxygen-inerting system in the existing fuel tank, while moving several censors and tweaking fuel pump pipe routings) would cause a pronounced forward shift in the aircraft's center of gravity.
As a result, Airbus took several precautions to preventing this: including certifying the aircraft only with a...
There's a physical reason why they didn't put F on those aircraft, initially.
During certification, Airbus believed that the increased fuel volume (much was offered by modifying the oxygen-inerting system in the existing fuel tank, while moving several censors and tweaking fuel pump pipe routings) would cause a pronounced forward shift in the aircraft's center of gravity.
As a result, Airbus took several precautions to preventing this: including certifying the aircraft only with a sealed forward cargo bay (saving weight by not installing the cargo-positioning hardware) and warning aircraft about heavy premium configurations being positioned only in the front.
In actual operation however, this turned out to not be of significant concern at all, and is one of the reasons Airbus decided to later give *all* newly produced A359s the same expanded physical fuel capacity of the -ULRs (all 283tonne standard A359s will have it), with only software patches needed to activate/operate them as such.
So with that in mind, it's very plausible that SQ could be adding F, in a physical sense.
Whether they see a market for it, is however another story.
sensors*
The business class seat is NOT great, so a more comfortable seat would be an awesome idea.
It is definitely a pain to have to stand up and do a turndown, just as you're getting sleepy, as opposed to just pushing a button to recline. I'll be content with whatever their new seat is, as long as THAT inconvenience is eliminated.
I booked SQ22 for March some time ago, J and PE were almost sold out by November. It's really an impressive achievement on such a long and costly flight, makes me understand the need for 2 daily flights.
I'm booked on SQ35 (earlier LAX-SIN) which will be operated by the -ULR, and the J is almost completely booked for my date in October as well!
It's insane that LAX doesn't have more service/competition to Singapore, when the premium cabins on some of the nonstops are already starting to fill, through the summer and early fall!
KrysFlyer is practically useless to those on the N.American west coast. :(
SQ introduced the A350-900ULR almost exclusively as a way to connect SIN to the largest business market in the world - NYC - which it could previously only serve with the ULR or the A340-500 before it. SQ is the only airline that ordered the A350-900ULR.
The very low number of seats is a product of the A350-900s capabilities at that time
Airbus has repeatedly increased the capabilities and performance of the A350. The A350-900ULR...
SQ introduced the A350-900ULR almost exclusively as a way to connect SIN to the largest business market in the world - NYC - which it could previously only serve with the ULR or the A340-500 before it. SQ is the only airline that ordered the A350-900ULR.
The very low number of seats is a product of the A350-900s capabilities at that time
Airbus has repeatedly increased the capabilities and performance of the A350. The A350-900ULR has a 280 tonne maximum takeoff weight, on the upper half of what the A350-900 is now capable of doing but not at the top end. In order to get the range, Airbus added extra fuel capacity and blocked the forward cargo compartment. Airbus has since introduced the New Production Standard and a 283 tonne MTOW version of the A350-900 which reduces the empty weight of the aircraft compared to the -ULR and increased the passenger capacity by about 40-50 passengers based solely on the same range and the increased MTOW.
As one of the largest A350 operators, SQ has A350-900s from nearly all MTOW versions but does not have the A350-1000 in service or on order.
SQ undoubtedly eventually will use some of its newest A350-900s on its NYC flights and increase capacity on its ULRs although it is possible that they still could not carry a full 253 passengers on their NYC-SIN flights which is how they have their most premium configured 283 tonne A350-900s configured.
Although SQ has the 777X on order rather than the A350-1000, the A350-900 will be SQ's longest range aircraft until at least when the 777-8 enters service if SQ decides to buy it. The larger 777-9 will not have the range of the currently most capable A350-900s or -1000s.
Airbus has simply done an outstanding job designing and enhancing the A350 to make it the true longest range commercial aircraft in the world and to give it the best economics.
Other A350 operators that are receiving new build A350s will also benefit from the range and capabilities of the A350 in either version.
Is this a bot or something?
no, it is a testament to what Airbus has done w/ the A350 and the reality that the A350ULRs are no longer the most capable or longest range aircraft and that SQ has every reason to not only upgrade the product but also ensure that their aircraft are in a strong competitive position should anyone else decide to enter the market
Be that as it may (and it may), the Boeing 7X7 (797) will likely be announced in the not so distant future and that will be a true gamechanger.
Boeing's greatest need is to fix its narrowbody product which is being beat by the A220 on the low end and the A321NEO at the top end.
It is doubtful that the 797 will be both a narrowbody and ultra long haul widebody aircraft.
Since the 777-8 is supposed to match the A350-1000's range with comparable seat costs - depending on who you ask - it is doubtful that Boeing is going to...
Boeing's greatest need is to fix its narrowbody product which is being beat by the A220 on the low end and the A321NEO at the top end.
It is doubtful that the 797 will be both a narrowbody and ultra long haul widebody aircraft.
Since the 777-8 is supposed to match the A350-1000's range with comparable seat costs - depending on who you ask - it is doubtful that Boeing is going to focus another aircraft development project on an ULH platform, esp. since the 777-9's development is probably pushed back because of the MAX issues - just because of FAA skepticism in Boeing even though the MAX and 777X are separate programs. The 777-8 will follow the 777-9 by at least year and by that time there will be hundreds more A350-1000s in service so the market for the 777-8 might not be that large but rather the 777X will gets its sales from the -9 variant. There are a number of airlines that have the 777X on order that are also A350-1000 operators or have that plane on their order books. There is little reason for an A350-1000 operator to also add the 777-8 given similar capabilities and size.
You know what will be a real game changer? The MAX not having an issue for 3 straight years and the 777x actually launching
What commercial planes have longer ranges than the a350ulr? I understand the 777x family is coming to market but they still both don’t have close to the same range as the ulr. Even the NPS doesn’t have close to it either.
None.
Though, the A350-900ULR is a bit of an obsolete concept, as now all factory A350-900s come standard with the additional fuel volume potential that was once unique to it.
The "Sunrise" A350-1000s to be used by Qantas, will soon take the mantle as having the longest range of any commercial aircraft, though it's still not yet been made public whether Airbus will certify that as a different sub-variant, or whether all A350-1000s will...
None.
Though, the A350-900ULR is a bit of an obsolete concept, as now all factory A350-900s come standard with the additional fuel volume potential that was once unique to it.
The "Sunrise" A350-1000s to be used by Qantas, will soon take the mantle as having the longest range of any commercial aircraft, though it's still not yet been made public whether Airbus will certify that as a different sub-variant, or whether all A350-1000s will soon adhere to that build standard.
Knowing Airbus's history, it'll likely be the latter.
Anecdotally, given the increasing rapidity with which travel bloggers and airline executives will describe aircraft / interiors as "aging" "inefficient" or "dated"; and given how insanely premium the market is for these flights; I have to imagine that even a 6-year old interior must be perceived as positively geriatric at this point.
I'm led to understand that this is the single most profitable route in SQ's network, with little possibility for any competition from other carriers now or on the horizon. No reason for SQ to change a thing or to have these planes out of service for a moment longer than necessary, or to potentially increase maintenance problems breaking in new equipment on this route. I doubt they'll change much of anything.
I bet SQ knows why this route is so profitable. If the reason for this success is high J demand, it makes sense they'd reconfigure the cabin with more J seats.
Singapore has grown as a financial center at Hong Kong's expense over the past few years which makes it likely that SQ does make a fortune on their NYC-SIN flights.
As noted above, the A350-900 is the only commercial aircraft that can carry a viable number of passengers on the NYC-SIN flights which are regularly 18 plus hours in the air, not including taxi time.
SQ "respects" Russia airspace embargoes which requires that NYC-SIN round-trip...
Singapore has grown as a financial center at Hong Kong's expense over the past few years which makes it likely that SQ does make a fortune on their NYC-SIN flights.
As noted above, the A350-900 is the only commercial aircraft that can carry a viable number of passengers on the NYC-SIN flights which are regularly 18 plus hours in the air, not including taxi time.
SQ "respects" Russia airspace embargoes which requires that NYC-SIN round-trip flights always fly eastbound. From NYC, they go over Europe, across Iran (which US carriers cannot do), and over India on the way to SIN. On the return to NYC, they fly up the Pacific Rim over Alaska and Canada.
UA dropped a number of routes from EWR including EWR-BOM so the 787-9 - Boeing's longest range aircraft other than the 777-200LR - cannot fly NYC-SIN with a viable payload.
However. Delta does have A350-900s and -1000s on order that have the same capabilities as the aircraft SQ has. DL flew to SIN via NRT and says it will return to SIN but hasn't given a timeline or US gateway. Its newest and most capable A350-900s will have 275 seats just 22 over what SQ uses on its A350-900s which currently operate LAX-SIN with a less capable model. The latest A350-900s can probably carry 200-225 passengers on NYC-SIN and that would be true for DL or SQ. While DL is not likely to have a super premium configuration such as SQ has on the ULR, it is possible that they could operate JFK-SIN w/ payload restrictions which they already take during the northern hemisphere winter on some of their current less capable A350-900 fleet due to winds and the altitude of JNB which is the origin of Delta's current longest flight, JNB-ATL.
It is not likely that DL will jump into JFK-SIN but it is not out of the realm of possibility. They have 16 new A350-900s coming in the next 2 years and 20 A350-1000s coming after that which will be even more capable; Airbus lists the -1000 with about 500 more nautical miles of range and Qantas will use the -1000 on its flights from SYD to LHR and JFK which will displace NYC-SIN as the longest flights but carry about 100 more passengers or almost as many as DL will have on its reconfigured A350-900s.
In fairness, I understand how it "looks good" on the surface: it's a different alliance than SQ, JFK is a hub for Delta, it's a premium market, they have the planes, they should do it. But upon closer scrutiny it doesn't hold.
Delta could almost only sell OD tickets on this route while Singapore Airlines can aggregate some connecting traffic on the SIN side.
The reason I say this is that Delta has other...
In fairness, I understand how it "looks good" on the surface: it's a different alliance than SQ, JFK is a hub for Delta, it's a premium market, they have the planes, they should do it. But upon closer scrutiny it doesn't hold.
Delta could almost only sell OD tickets on this route while Singapore Airlines can aggregate some connecting traffic on the SIN side.
The reason I say this is that Delta has other better placed hubs in the US to offer broader connectivity from SIN with not as much backtracking.
Considering the product reputation, especially the lucrative Business class, Delta would probably even have to sell this flight at a discount vs SQ.
I think they can go after more "in-character" routes first, where their value proposition is better, if they want to continue the expansion in the ULH segment they started with the South African routes.
Barb,
first, no US carrier offers onboard service as good as SQ or just about any of the other major Asian airlines but the US airlines still manage to get a significant chunk of the US-Asia market.
second, I am not predicting DL will start JFK-SIN but I am noting that there are only 4 airlines - AA, DL, UA and SQ that could even conceivably start US-SIN and specifically NYC-SIN service and...
Barb,
first, no US carrier offers onboard service as good as SQ or just about any of the other major Asian airlines but the US airlines still manage to get a significant chunk of the US-Asia market.
second, I am not predicting DL will start JFK-SIN but I am noting that there are only 4 airlines - AA, DL, UA and SQ that could even conceivably start US-SIN and specifically NYC-SIN service and AA and UA cannot do NYC-SIN with their 787s. DL has A350s with the same or better (the -1000) capability as SQ has so from a technical standpoint DL could start the route.
third, DL does very well with corporate contracts and esp. in the financial sector in NYC which is what makes up most of the NYC-SIN traffic. DL could win that traffic as easily as SQ can.
fourth, DL's JFK hub is just as capable of connecting traffic to a potential JFK-SIN flight as SQ can on the SIN end. And there is probably more of the total US-SE SIN market that DL can connect via JFK on its own network than SQ can carry.
fifth, I expect DL will start LAX-SIN first if their statements to employees about wanting to re-enter SIN indicate real plans. AA and UA are working to make their 787s capable of doing that route while DL has A350s coming this summer that could do it.
There are too many people that assume that DL's smaller Asian network is because it doesn't want to have a larger Asian network. In reality, DL served a half dozen cities up and down the Pacific Rim beyond Tokyo but had to close the NRT hub, covid hit, they retired the 777 fleet during the pandemic, and now the pieces are coming together to make a push back into the rest of the Asia as well as build ICN. They have the aircraft coming to do both.
And specific to NYC, UA has dropped huge portions of its EWR-Asia service because of the Russian airspace restrictions because the 787s cannot operate some of the flights (HKG, BOM) and because of Chinese flight limitations (PEK and PVG). DL knows how much revenue UA carried and has the more capable A350s coming online. If DL wants to make a push to build NYC-Asia, there is a ready-made list of markets to enter which would take very little time to develop because UA previously served them.
SQ’s most profitable route is probably still to London Heathrow. 2x A380s + 2x 777-300ERs with healthy margins and consistently high loads make it one of the top 10 most lucrative flight routes in the world..
in terms of absolute profits, yes. In terms of margins, it could well be NYC-SIN.
SQ has a monopoly on NYC-SIN but not to London
Sydney and Melbourne are also profitable for Singapore Airlines. Sydney has upto 5 daily flights while Melbourne has 4 daily flights.
It’s the other way around - Mel has 5, Syd has 4
Maybe, but it's also easy to confuse "highest revenue generating" with "most profitable," as the latter can be highly relative.