SInGAPORE_AIR From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 12544 posts, RR: 15 Posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9991 times:
Sorry, exam, rushed post:
Mr. Chew Choon Seng, CEO Singapore Airlines Limited:
"So, if the mix of the 747-400 freighters that we have plus what we have in hand, in terms of conversions of our passenger aircraft into freighters that will be undertaken in the next couple of years or so, that would serve our needs adequately. We are not convinced about the additional expenditure that would be needed to renew the freighter fleet with 747-8s freighters, when the tradeoffs in terms of operating efficiency is rather marginal – in our view. So, we do not need that."
Thought that viewpoint may interest some.
Not an employee or representative of Singapore Airlines Limited, or any related company, or their views thereof.
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4060 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9918 times:
Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter): "So, if the mix of the 747-400 freighters that we have plus what we have in hand, in terms of conversions of our passenger aircraft into freighters that will be undertaken in the next couple of years or so, that would serve our needs adequately. We are not convinced about the additional expenditure that would be needed to renew the freighter fleet with 747-8s freighters, when the tradeoffs in terms of operating efficiency is rather marginal – in our view. So, we do not need that."
Thought that viewpoint may interest some.
I find it very, very hard to believe that the 748F will offer nothing better than "marginal" operating costs savings over the 744F - if this was the case then why have so many freight carriers bought it? I mean, its not like its a cheap plane to buy - the acquisition costs are very high per airframe, and I refuse to believe carriers such as Cargolux would spend so much on replacing their venerable and still highly capable 744Fs with the new 748F if the savings were "marginal".
They dont rate the 744BCF either apparently. Jeez - no pleasing some people LOL
"REJOICE! Bush is (bad) history! - GO OBAMA! Make the World love the USA again!"
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 6938 posts, RR: 15 Reply 2, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9870 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1): They dont rate the 744BCF either apparently. Jeez - no pleasing some people LOL
He does mention the conversion of existing pax acft into freighters; won't these be BCFs?
Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter): in terms of conversions of our passenger aircraft into freighters that will be undertaken in the next couple of years
Personally, I think it makes perfect sense; why pay $250m on a new 748F when you can convert existing 744s? Let's say the capacity advantage of the 748F over the 744F is 10% (I don't know exactly what it is, but let's say 10% for arguments's sake); will that extra 10% provide such a boost in revenue and profitability that it will justify such an expensive acquisition? Hardly likely, I'd say.
"Surely you can't be serious?" "I am serious. And don't call me Shirley".
Scbriml From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 7879 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9815 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1): I find it very, very hard to believe that the 748F will offer nothing better than "marginal" operating costs savings over the 744F
Maybe for SQ's cargo operations, it doesn't. Either way, Mr Chew is clearly no fan of the -8!
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1): if this was the case then why have so many freight carriers bought it?
Simply because they have no choice - Boeing stopped selling the -744F!
If they need a new, 747 sized freighter, then the -8F is the only game in town. It would be interesting to see how many -8F sales Boeing would have if the 744F was still available.
The Queen is dead, long live the new Queen of the skies.
Nicholaschee From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9798 times:
Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter): in terms of conversions of our passenger aircraft into freighters that will be undertaken in the next couple of years or so
They are not getting any 747BCFs. So the only other aircraft that seem possible will be the 772s. 772BCFs?
CHRISBA777ER From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 4060 posts, RR: 50 Reply 6, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 9787 times:
Quoting Kaitak (Reply 2): Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1):
They dont rate the 744BCF either apparently. Jeez - no pleasing some people LOL
He does mention the conversion of existing pax acft into freighters; won't these be BCFs?
There was a quote from them saying that the 744BCF isnt good for them - they have three conversions running for Great Wall I think, and the consensus was that they are a lot less capable than newbuild 744Fs - PhilSquares will know, I'm sure he'll be kind enough to clarify.
Quoting Glareskin (Reply 3): Maybe because they didn't have pax 744 versions to convert and needed new freighters anyway?
I take your point. Thing is, the 748i is meant to have better operating costs per trip at max payload than the A388, which is roughly comparable in terms of trip costs to a 744 I understand. That being the case, how can the 748i at max payload not be better - it carries more freight further and at a similar operating cost.
"REJOICE! Bush is (bad) history! - GO OBAMA! Make the World love the USA again!"
Nicholaschee From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 175 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 9744 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 6): There was a quote from them saying that the 744BCF isnt good for them - they have three conversions running for Great Wall I think, and the consensus was that they are a lot less capable than newbuild 744Fs - PhilSquares will know, I'm sure he'll be kind enough to clarify.
Great Wall Airlines leased the 2 744Fs (9V-SFE/SFH) from SQ Cargo. Not sure who owns the 744BCF though, last owner is Guggenheim Aviation Partners maybe they are the lessor.
Stitch From United States, joined Jul 2005, 11867 posts, RR: 50 Reply 8, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9522 times:
PhilSquares noted that the lack of a nose door and the lower load limit for parts of the main deck make the 747-400BCF a poor choice for SQ Cargo.
The 747-8F carries a higher payload at greater range then the 747-400F and 747-400ERF. If SQ Cargo needs neither, then I can understand how their existing fleet of 747-400Fs is plenty for them, though they are getting along in years. On the flip side, if they see lower utilization rates, they could have plenty of life left in them...
Jacobin777 From United States, joined Sep 2004, 12398 posts, RR: 54 Reply 9, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9491 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1): I find it very, very hard to believe that the 748F will offer nothing better than "marginal" operating costs savings over the 744F - if this was the case then why have so many freight carriers bought it?
Obviously he has no vested interest in the B748I/F..however some of his comments are rather questionable..
"Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Tony Tyler. “We are very excited about the 747-8 Freighter, which provides the highest payload of any commercial freighter. More importantly, this is a highly fuel-efficient aircraft which consumes 22 percent less fuel per revenue payload tonne than a 747-200F and 12 percent less than a 747-400F."
NA From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 5113 posts, RR: 5 Reply 10, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9426 times:
That guy from SIA is known for not being a 747 fan, so what.
I think a 12% gain is quite a lot, and much more than what some people get excited about when comparing other types in the so-much-loved A vs B topics.
Danny From Ireland, joined Apr 2002, 3073 posts, RR: 3 Reply 11, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 9288 times:
Quoting CHRISBA777ER (Reply 1): I find it very, very hard to believe that the 748F will offer nothing better than "marginal" operating costs savings over the 744F - if this was the case then why have so many freight carriers bought it?
As usual, some tend to forget about ownership cost. SQ already has 747-400 and all they need to do is convert them to freighter when their A380 arrive. How much do you think will the conversion cost comparing to purchase of new -8F?
I do not think he is considering just the operating cost efficiency gains. When he says "marginal", he is considering "economic gain" which includes acquisition costs. so when you factor that in, perhaps they are only seeing <5% gain!! Now add also that they need infrastructure for a new fleet type to the mix, and perhaps it is not worth it. I can see clearly where SIA is coming from, and they are very astute when it comes to AC selection, performance and utilization.
We, armchair CEOs, are just speculating without knowing the full extent of their operations!! Come on, who are we to second-guess a carrier with a solid performance record and that made $1.5B profits!! They KNOW what they are talking about.
Osiris30 From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 2391 posts, RR: 11 Reply 14, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9133 times:
Quoting Danny (Reply 11): As usual, some tend to forget about ownership cost. SQ already has 747-400 and all they need to do is convert them to freighter when their A380 arrive. How much do you think will the conversion cost comparing to purchase of new -8F?
The cost incresae due to acquisition of new 748F is probably less than the fuel saved over the life of the 748F in operation. 12% is a big amount of cash over 20 years.
I don't care what you think of my opinion. It's my opinion, so have a nice day :)
Slz396 From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 1886 posts, RR: 9 Reply 15, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9131 times:
Well, SQ clearly isn't in love with the 747 anymore, which is remarkable for an airline which has depended heavily on the type for over 30 years. Mr. Chew Choon Seng, could have a point though:
SQ has a fairly large fleet of amortized 744s available for conversion soon, so the 12% efficiency gain of the 748F (as CX reports) may not be enough to make it worth for him from this perspective, if we take into account ownership costs and the fairly modest utilisation rates of cargo planes compared to pax planes.
It indicates a future problem for the 748: if it can only be of interest to those kind of customers who can't get their hands on enough ditch cheap 747-400 for conversion, sales may dry up in a few years as once scores of these classics will hit the second hand market.
Coming to think about it, it proofs once more what a stellar plane the A388 must be: its economics convinced SQ to ditch their 747 in all possible iterations, but then a 20%+ efficiency gain has different repercussions than just a 12% gain. It is also the difference between a new design and yesterday's best plane tweaked for the future.
The window of opportunity for the 748i has been shown to be quite small already (ironically -or not- also by SQ at first); it looks like the same is about to happen to the 748F, albeit in the case of the -F there will always be some new takers.
Tavong From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 693 posts, RR: 4 Reply 16, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9086 times:
Quoting Mptpa (Reply 13): I do not think he is considering just the operating cost efficiency gains. When he says "marginal", he is considering "economic gain" which includes acquisition costs. so when you factor that in, perhaps they are only seeing <5% gain!! Now add also that they need infrastructure for a new fleet type to the mix, and perhaps it is not worth it. I can see clearly where SIA is coming from, and they are very astute when it comes to AC selection, performance and utilization.
Yes, altough he´s considering "economic gain" includes acquisition cost, maybe he´s just talking to get more discounts from Boeing (not sure if he will get it), at this time he only sees <5% gain, but it´s also clear that in that market segment there is no other choice, so IMHO no matter what he says or what he does at the end if he needs to fill that market he finally will buy an 747-8F.
Gus
SKBO
Colombian coffee, the best...take a cup and you will see how delicious it is.
NicoEDDF From Germany, joined Jan 2008, 183 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 9076 times:
Quoting SInGAPORE_AIR (Thread starter): when the tradeoffs in terms of operating efficiency is rather marginal – in our view
Isn't he absolutely clear underlining, that in THEIR VIEW (!!!) it is not worth it?
He didn't say 748F is a bad plane or has only marginal operating cost gains over the 744F. He said for THEM, meaning their specific situation its just not worth to replace 744 with 748.
Khobar From United States, joined Mar 2006, 1598 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 month 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 8961 times:
Quoting Slz396 (Reply 15): Well, SQ clearly isn't in love with the 747 anymore, which is remarkable for an airline which has depended heavily on the type for over 30 years. Mr. Chew Choon Seng, could have a point though:
He's the guy who was blowing a fuse over the A380 delays, and suddenly was very favorable about the A380 when the compensation package came in the mail.
This is also the guy who said he would rather misuse the A380 than buy 747's.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 12544 posts, 
From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 6938 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1012 posts, .gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Jul 2003, 7879 posts, 
From Australia, joined Oct 2005, 175 posts, 
From United States, joined Jul 2005, 11867 posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 5113 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Sep 2006, 2391 posts, 
From Belgium, joined Oct 2001, 1886 posts, 
From Colombia, joined Jul 2001, 693 posts,