Singapore Airlines takes delivery of first A350-900ULR from Airbus

Polot · Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:14 pm

neutrino wrote:
Erebus wrote:
I know it is a highly specialised cabin, but any prospects of this aircraft being used on short haul rotations for making the most of it?

I suppose it will take after the previous A345's practice of doing Jkt-Sin-Jkt in-between its primary missions, chiefly for the pilots to put in more rotations and also to utilize the plane more as otherwise it would be on the ground for many hours everyday. And like previously, discounted tickets won't be valid on these short hops.

I thought that was primarily so the pilots would have sufficient number of takeoffs/landings or whatever on the type. That shouldn’t be an issue for the ULR, as I assume SQ will use the same pilot pool as all the other A350s in the fleet. The A345 was a unique type for SQ.

haynflyer · Sat Sep 22, 2018 10:27 pm

ikolkyo wrote:
carlokiii wrote:
StTim wrote:
Delivery flight in progress.

https://www.flightradar24.com/SIA8895/1df55a7a

That’s an extremely northerly route they’re doing here. TLS-SIN isn’t even a polar route. Are they trying to stretch the delivery flight upwards of 18 hours?

Yeah where the hell are they going? Above Norway now, they must be trying to stretch the flight time.

The reason for the #A350ULR’s current route.
Quote Tweet
Airbus
@Airbus
Replying to @WandrMe and @flightradar24
Hi Seth, the aircraft is taking an extended route on its delivery flight to enable the airline to undertake performance checks.

neutrino · Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:19 am

Polot wrote:
I thought that was primarily so the pilots would have sufficient number of takeoffs/landings or whatever on the type. That shouldn’t be an issue for the ULR, as I assume SQ will use the same pilot pool as all the other A350s in the fleet. The A345 was a unique type for SQ.

Thats so but the pilots will certainly benefit from that Jkt hop. Each of them will get to log only one rotation a week or so (could be even less if they carry a spare pilot or two beyond the minimum four needed) for that ULR mission, but add in Jkt and it will be doubled. Anyway that just my thoughts which could be wildly off.

neutrino · Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:50 am

MartijnNL wrote:
Why are the last rows in premium economy 1-4-1 instead of 2-4-2? I remember Airbus saying that the cabin width of its A350 stays the same the entire length of the plane, unlike the A330's and A340's whose cabins get less wide in the back.

From the seatmap, row 42 definitely tapers helluva lot and 41 might a little (reclining seatback could hit the sidewall?) but 40 for sure seem regular.
Sometimes the OEMs' words should be taken with a few specks of salt.

hOMSaR · Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:01 am

neutrino wrote:
Polot wrote:
I thought that was primarily so the pilots would have sufficient number of takeoffs/landings or whatever on the type. That shouldn’t be an issue for the ULR, as I assume SQ will use the same pilot pool as all the other A350s in the fleet. The A345 was a unique type for SQ.

Thats so but the pilots will certainly benefit from that Jkt hop. Each of them will get to log only one rotation a week or so (could be even less if they carry a spare pilot or two beyond the minimum four needed) for that ULR mission, but add in Jkt and it will be doubled. Anyway that just my thoughts which could be wildly off.

Why would the pilots flying the EWR flight necessarily be the same ones flying the JKT flights?

MartijnNL · Sun Sep 23, 2018 6:16 am

I just woke up (it's 08.15 am in the Netherlands). First thing I did, after going to the toilet (yes I had to use it within 17 hours, sassiciai

), was look up this delivery flight on flightradar24. After 14 hours it is still in the air, currently crossing the border with Thailand. About two hours to go to Singapore.

MartijnNL · Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:01 am

A picture of the aircraft taking off in Toulouse is currently on the frontpage of this website:
https://www.airliners.net/photo/Singapo ... LR/5203569

VirginFlyer · Sun Sep 23, 2018 8:09 am

Here we go, the first pics in the database:

V/F

scbriml · Sun Sep 23, 2018 9:43 am

neutrino wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
Why are the last rows in premium economy 1-4-1 instead of 2-4-2? I remember Airbus saying that the cabin width of its A350 stays the same the entire length of the plane, unlike the A330's and A340's whose cabins get less wide in the back.

From the seatmap, row 42 definitely tapers helluva lot and 41 might a little (reclining seatback could hit the sidewall?) but 40 for sure seem regular.
Sometimes the OEMs' words should be taken with a few specks of salt.

You're reading too much into a schematic diagram.

The A350's passenger cabin is a uniform width between door 1 and door 4. There is no cabin taper like the A300/A330/A340 and no upward slope either. There'll be some other reason for the odd seating arrangement (maybe crew rest?), but it's not down to cabin taper.

StTim · Sun Sep 23, 2018 10:56 am

It looks like a draft seat plan. If you look at the standard A350-900 for Singapore on Seatguru there is no taper. It is also a different style of diagram.

neutrino · Sun Sep 23, 2018 7:33 pm

scbriml wrote:
......There'll be some other reason for the odd seating arrangement (maybe crew rest?), but it's not down to cabin taper..

Ok, sounds reasonable.

zeke · Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:26 am

I’m thinking it’s cart stowage, on the -900 they have the toilets forward of the aft door, on the ULR they are aft of the door. That would eat into the stowage space in the galley

https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... ngHaul.pdf
https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... 00-ULR.pdf

The last row has no taper I have sat in that row before. It was a good seat, normal width, good window, and there was room between the seat and the bulkhead behold so it reclined normally.

Kikko19 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:00 am

would the a350 ulr have more or less seat than the 789 used per-lhr? what about range and capacity/cargo/consumption per pax?

qf002 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:08 am

zeke wrote:
I’m thinking it’s cart stowage, on the -900 they have the toilets forward of the aft door, on the ULR they are aft of the door. That would eat into the stowage space in the galley

My guess is that it's much simpler than that -- the single seats are probably there because they need space to align the aisles to the standard rear galley fixtures. You see the same thing on aircraft with 3-4-3 in Y which taper down to 3-3-3 in the last few rows.

CARST · Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:15 am

I have an important question (because I need to know how to put it in my logbook :mrgreen:

):

Will the A359ULR be considered a separate type?

I discussed it with a mate and we are not sure. I thought it's just a regular A359 with extra tanks. The larger winglets will no be a standard for all new build A350s, right? So this isn't unique to the ULR, right?

So does the A359ULR count as different type or not? Is it just special for us avgeeks or is it "really special"?

Not trying to go off-topic, but I tried to compare it to 737-900 to 900ER, is that a similar case? And A321neoLR to A321neo non-LR?

boerje · Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:49 am

CARST wrote:
Not trying to go off-topic, but I tried to compare it to 737-900 to 900ER, is that a similar case? And A321neoLR to A321neo non-LR?

I will unfortunately go off-topic as I edit your A321neoLR to A321LR.

Max Q · Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:01 am

Is this the first A350 with a ‘deactivated’
forward cargo hold ?

Samrnpage · Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:39 am

161 seats makes me think the rotues wont be profitable, however, do I know more than Singapore Airlines management? Probably not.

ewt340 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:50 am

Samrnpage wrote:
161 seats makes me think the rotues wont be profitable, however, do I know more than Singapore Airlines management? Probably not.

I think it probably would since those 161 seats are premium only seats. If they could fill it up then they would be quite profitable.

MartijnNL · Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:33 pm

The A340-500 that preceded the A350-900 ULR on this route had 100 business class seats. Using less fuel and carrying 61 passengers more might make a difference.

From Wikipedia:
Singapore Airlines originally offered 64 business class and 117 Executive Economy Class seats on this flight. SIA phased out the Executive Economy Class in favor of 100-seat all-Business Class flights in 2008.

Revelation · Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:40 pm

VirginFlyer wrote:
Here we go, the first pics in the database:

V/F

Very nice!

DescendPHLBO3 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:01 pm

ewt340 wrote:
Samrnpage wrote:
161 seats makes me think the rotues wont be profitable, however, do I know more than Singapore Airlines management? Probably not.

I think it probably would since those 161 seats are premium only seats. If they could fill it up then they would be quite profitable.

I posted this earlier...I recognize that the primary rationale for this configuration was to make maximize payload (fuel), however - I would love to see how its PRESM (SLA'd) compares to their standard A359, and even how it compares to QR, or DL's A359. Would be interesting to see if a ultra heavy premium conformation can actually drive a revenue premium...

Its less about filling it up, but rather at what marginal PRESM. This plane is all about tradeoffs, and on an aggregate, is each individual seat going to take a 60%+ premium over a standard SQ A359? Thats for revenue parity, and we can only assume thats costs will be higher.

YouGeeElWhy · Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:01 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
The A340-500 that preceded the A350-900 ULR on this route had 100 business class seats. Using less fuel and carrying 61 passengers more might make a difference.

Do we have any ideas/guesses as to how much less fuel will be used and what that would equate to an actual money?

NZ321 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:31 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
Why are the last rows in premium economy 1-4-1 instead of 2-4-2? I remember Airbus saying that the cabin width of its A350 stays the same the entire length of the plane, unlike the A330's and A340's whose cabins get less wide in the back.

Because it's premium economy and on SQ this means 19.5 inches seat width compared to 17.3 on a UA 789 or 18 on a standard SQ A350. 2.2 inches per seat is quite a bit across the cabin.

ewt340 · Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:25 pm

DescendPHLBO3 wrote:
ewt340 wrote:
Samrnpage wrote:
161 seats makes me think the rotues wont be profitable, however, do I know more than Singapore Airlines management? Probably not.

I think it probably would since those 161 seats are premium only seats. If they could fill it up then they would be quite profitable.

I posted this earlier...I recognize that the primary rationale for this configuration was to make maximize payload (fuel), however - I would love to see how its PRESM (SLA'd) compares to their standard A359, and even how it compares to QR, or DL's A359. Would be interesting to see if a ultra heavy premium conformation can actually drive a revenue premium...

Its less about filling it up, but rather at what marginal PRESM. This plane is all about tradeoffs, and on an aggregate, is each individual seat going to take a 60%+ premium over a standard SQ A359? Thats for revenue parity, and we can only assume thats costs will be higher.

I think you forgot that PRESM means little in this particular routes. They want this route to work either way as long as it doesn't lose money.

I'm sure they gonna charged higher premium for these flights.

QueenoftheSkies · Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:27 pm

MartijnNL wrote:
The A340-500 that preceded the A350-900 ULR on this route had 100 business class seats. Using less fuel and carrying 61 passengers more might make a difference.

From Wikipedia:
Singapore Airlines originally offered 64 business class and 117 Executive Economy Class seats on this flight. SIA phased out the Executive Economy Class in favor of 100-seat all-Business Class flights in 2008.

Assuming every seat on that plane is filled consistently.......unlikely.

Erebus · Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:53 pm

CARST wrote:
I discussed it with a mate and we are not sure. I thought it's just a regular A359 with extra tanks. The larger winglets will no be a standard for all new build A350s, right? So this isn't unique to the ULR, right?

So does the A359ULR count as different type or not? Is it just special for us avgeeks or is it "really special"?

I see the ULR as just another A359 which uses more internal volume for fuel (no extra tanks needed). And yes, the new bigger winglets are standard on new build A359s.

As far as the modifications go, I think they are relatively minor and sort of on par with what Airbus did to the A330 to raise its range, e.g. expanded fuel volume and some aerodynamic tweaks to push up that range. You wouldn't log a 242T A330 flight separately, would you?

ltbewr · Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:06 am

I live just north of EWR and on a major pathway to the Northern approach so see a lot of flights on approach. I hope I can see these new SQ planes fly over. I am also glad that EWR once again have the longest scheduled pax flight in the world. I wonder what the take off performance of these new planes vs the low and slow 340's.
As to the toilet count, what if a toilet breaks down ? That could make things even worse on the others, especially on a ULH. I would also presume they have very large water and sewer tanks on the UHL models.

alancostello · Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:51 am

ltbewr wrote:
I live just north of EWR and on a major pathway to the Northern approach so see a lot of flights on approach. I hope I can see these new SQ planes fly over. I am also glad that EWR once again have the longest scheduled pax flight in the world. I wonder what the take off performance of these new planes vs the low and slow 340's.
As to the toilet count, what if a toilet breaks down ? That could make things even worse on the others, especially on a ULH. I would also presume they have very large water and sewer tanks on the UHL models.

Half the passengers on double the flight length wouldn't require any additional water tanks, should work to the same usage and wastewater as any 10 hour flight.

zeke · Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:01 am

They have actually removed half the tanks on the ULR, that and single channel slide rafts dropped the empty weight down 1 tonne alone.

neutrino · Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:22 am

Samrnpage wrote:
161 seats makes me think the routes wont be profitable, however, do I know more than Singapore Airlines management? Definitely not.

Fixed that for you. You're welcome.

enzo011 · Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:26 am

NZ321 wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
Why are the last rows in premium economy 1-4-1 instead of 2-4-2? I remember Airbus saying that the cabin width of its A350 stays the same the entire length of the plane, unlike the A330's and A340's whose cabins get less wide in the back.

Because it's premium economy and on SQ this means 19.5 inches seat width compared to 17.3 on a UA 789 or 18 on a standard SQ A350. 2.2 inches per seat is quite a bit across the cabin.

The whole cabin is premium economy though, so the rows ahead of those would have the same seats. The question was about figuring out why they removed 2 seats per row at the back for the last few rows when there is no tapering that would require it.

Edited to add:

Maybe its just to get the amount of seats in for the cabin. They wanted around 160 seats to make the flights work, from a capacity and range perspective. If they kept it at 2-4-2 all the way back it would have been 10 extra seats. Then again as Zeke posited it may be due to equipment in the cabin that forced them into this layout.

StudiodeKadent · Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:13 am

NZ321 wrote:
MartijnNL wrote:
Why are the last rows in premium economy 1-4-1 instead of 2-4-2? I remember Airbus saying that the cabin width of its A350 stays the same the entire length of the plane, unlike the A330's and A340's whose cabins get less wide in the back.

Because it's premium economy and on SQ this means 19.5 inches seat width compared to 17.3 on a UA 789 or 18 on a standard SQ A350. 2.2 inches per seat is quite a bit across the cabin.

SQ's A350 PE is 18.5inches, with 4" central consoles and 2" armrests (i.e. the non-console armrests).

SQ's A350 Economy is 18 inches wide with 1.5" armrests.

Qantas94Heavy · Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:47 am

I think there may be some very slight tapering that is hard to notice. Otherwise, why wouldn't some airline like Air Caraibes not use 3-4-3 all the way to the back? https://www.aircaraibes.com/plan-cabine-a350-900

I think you can just see it in this video at 8:00: https://youtu.be/JA2cAeO840M?t=480

Loran · Tue Sep 25, 2018 9:02 am

QueenoftheSkies wrote:
Assuming every seat on that plane is filled consistently.......unlikely.

So you seriously believe SQ's revenue management calculates its route profitabilities with a 100% load factor? :sarcastic:

qf002 · Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:34 am

enzo011 wrote:
The whole cabin is premium economy though, so the rows ahead of those would have the same seats. The question was about figuring out why they removed 2 seats per row at the back for the last few rows when there is no tapering that would require it.

Because, as I said upthread, they have to work around the standard rear galley fixtures. The rear part of the cabin was not designed to accommodate the sort of configuration SQ is fitting so compromises have to be made. The alternative is spending millions of dollars designing, manufacturing and certifying bespoke galley fittings.

SpoonNZ · Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:52 am

qf002 wrote:
Because, as I said upthread, they have to work around the standard rear galley fixtures. The rear part of the cabin was not designed to accommodate the sort of configuration SQ is fitting so compromises have to be made. The alternative is spending millions of dollars designing, manufacturing and certifying bespoke galley fittings.

That would make sense of the centre block narrowed from 4 to 3. Doesn't make sense narrowing the side blocks to 1 when a standard Y configuration would have 3 seats on each side.

zeke · Tue Sep 25, 2018 10:58 am

Qantas94Heavy wrote:
I think there may be some very slight tapering that is hard to notice. Otherwise, why wouldn't some airline like Air Caraibes not use 3-4-3 all the way to the back? https://www.aircaraibes.com/plan-cabine-a350-900

I think you can just see it in this video at 8:00: https://youtu.be/JA2cAeO840M?t=480

Between door 1 and door 2 is known as zone A, between door 2 and 3 zone B, and between door 3 and door 4 zone C. They have 330 seats in zones B (180)+C (150), the maximum certified limit in the combined zones B+C is 330 seats. I dont know what emergency side configuration they have (cannot tell by looking at the door), the exit limit is either 330/385/440 seats depending if they opted for single or dual lane slides.

xdlx · Tue Sep 25, 2018 11:26 am

eamondzhang wrote:
YouGeeElWhy wrote:
I am not sure why but the number of toilets on this plane gives me anxiety. It does not seem like enough. 3 for 67 bladders in J and 3 for 94 bladders in W.

That's plenty as airlines are reducing number of toilets in all classes since they're occupying spaces that can otherwise earn money. QF gives 1 toilet for 28J going 8hrs and AC gives 6 toilets for 398(!) pax on 14hr flights.

Michael

Can not resist to add to this.... the FACT that during the "travel time" the lavatory is the only space you get to utilize by yourself....

AIRBUS HAS THE WRONG IDEA.... the DL A333 LAVS are made for "ELFS". And perhaps the engineers should consider a LAV located in between cabins with access to both premium and economy, since crew will not allow switching cabins to access the loo!

zeke · Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:03 pm

xdlx wrote:

Can not resist to add to this.... the FACT that during the "travel time" the lavatory is the only space you get to utilize by yourself.... AIRBUS HAS THE WRONG IDEA.... the DL A333 LAVS are made for "ELFS". And perhaps the engineers should consider a LAV located in between cabins with access to both premium and economy, since crew will not allow switching cabins to access the loo!

Boeing and Airbus do not make the Lavs, they are purely a customer options offered from a number of different manufacturers.

eamondzhang · Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:28 pm

zeke wrote:
xdlx wrote:

Can not resist to add to this.... the FACT that during the "travel time" the lavatory is the only space you get to utilize by yourself.... AIRBUS HAS THE WRONG IDEA.... the DL A333 LAVS are made for "ELFS". And perhaps the engineers should consider a LAV located in between cabins with access to both premium and economy, since crew will not allow switching cabins to access the loo!

Boeing and Airbus do not make the Lavs, they are purely a customer options offered from a number of different manufacturers.

And ultimately it's the Wall Street and all those people wanting the lower fares pushing the airlines to these toilets.

Michael

qf002 · Tue Sep 25, 2018 12:54 pm

SpoonNZ wrote:
That would make sense of the centre block narrowed from 4 to 3. Doesn't make sense narrowing the side blocks to 1 when a standard Y configuration would have 3 seats on each side.

There are multiple galley options to chose from. The narrower four cart option which is designed to fit behind 3 Y seats (and is what most A350s have at the rear of the cabin) and a wider six cart option which is designed to fit behind 2 J or 4 W seats. My guess is that SQ has gone with the wider option.

There isn't much point in speculating further though without photos or a more detailed layout. I'm sure there will be a press launch soon.

The787Driver · Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:23 pm

What the aircraft going to do until it starts EWR in October? Any premium heavy routes they can use it on?

airtropolis · Tue Sep 25, 2018 1:43 pm

Wondering if they would have this facility on board - https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... travelnews
Like they did with the A340-500

Flighty · Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:24 pm

So the flight time was 16:28. Lengthy flight, but no challenge at all for this mighty airplane. Compared to A359, whose performance is fairly well understood, what is the additional capability of A359ULR? What will SQ do with it?

By the way, because I and many others are not experts or dispatchers, the actual scheduled performance is where we see some airplanes succeed and some fail. I wonder what real world routes SQ has in mind. EWR is known. It will provide massive fuel savings over their mid-2000s A345 service. Others?

TheRedBaron · Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:30 pm

I wish them luck, and a huge success its nice to see this kind of routes and the aircraft that can do it. Love to see photos of the interior.

Best regards
TRB

ojjunior · Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:19 pm

it's such an achievement but I do not get tired of feeling bad for the poor souls flying economy... no matter how new, modern or good IFE the plane has, no one deserves it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2018/05/31/singapore-airlines-readies-airbus-a350ulr-for-worlds-longest-commercial-flights/#4df121e675c3

Erebus · Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:26 pm

ojjunior wrote:
it's such an achievement but I do not get tired of feeling bad for the poor souls flying economy... no matter how new, modern or good IFE the plane has, no one deserves it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2018/05/31/singapore-airlines-readies-airbus-a350ulr-for-worlds-longest-commercial-flights/#4df121e675c3

No Economy in this cabin. Only Business and Premium Economy.

VirginFlyer · Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:28 pm

ojjunior wrote:
it's such an achievement but I do not get tired of feeling bad for the poor souls flying economy... no matter how new, modern or good IFE the plane has, no one deserves it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelgoldstein/2018/05/31/singapore-airlines-readies-airbus-a350ulr-for-worlds-longest-commercial-flights/#4df121e675c3

Don’t feel too bad then; the aircraft has Business Class and Premium Economy only.

V/F

ojjunior · Tue Sep 25, 2018 3:35 pm

Erebus wrote:
No Economy in this cabin. Only Business and Premium Economy.

VirginFlyer wrote:
Don’t feel too bad then; the aircraft has Business Class and Premium Economy only.

V/F

You got it folks ;-)

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net