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.

Yes, nobody...except airline executives!

Flighty wrote:

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?

Just more activated tanks for more fuel, 24.000L more fuel, for a total of 165.000L. If they use those tanks they will have 124-132t of fuel on board, and hence won't have much payload left. If OEW is 135t they can only load 20t payload and fly that 19 hours give or take, with 125t fuel.
No idea if MZFW is lower, but if not, in other flights performance would be the same of a stock A359 if I understand correctly.

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.

The A359 was already flying a good while when they sold the ULR. I would expect them to meet promisses or very slighy exceed them.

Best regards
Thomas

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.

"but I do not get tired of feeling bad for the poor souls flying Business or First Class on commercial flights................no one deserves it.", so say private jets users.
It's all relative, man.

A quick search for seats in mid-Oct in Premium Economy on EWR-SIN is $1,349/rt. That, to me, seems like a great deal for travel on a new aircraft, a great airline, all-premium configuration with comparatively few passengers.

An ok price though a one stop std Y on Air China costs almost half of that.

neutrino wrote:

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.

"but I do not get tired of feeling bad for the poor souls flying Business or First Class on commercial flights................no one deserves it.", so say private jets users.
It's all relative, man.

So you really wanna compare flying ULH in First or Bizjet with flying economy? Nah... don't think so.
Try a 17+ hours leg in biz or 1st class then return in economy and tell us your experience later.

ojjunior wrote:

neutrino wrote:

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.

"but I do not get tired of feeling bad for the poor souls flying Business or First Class on commercial flights................no one deserves it.", so say private jets users.
It's all relative, man.

So you really wanna compare flying ULH in First or Bizjet with flying economy? Nah... don't think so.
Try a 17+ hours leg in biz or 1st class then return in economy and tell us your experience later.

Agreed. Comparing SQ to Air China is a little silly too. I guess Air China gives you free secondhand smoke exposure from the pilots!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

neutrino wrote:

An ok price though a one stop std Y on Air China costs almost half of that.

That price is for PY though. And surprisingly it is the cheapest PY on that route. CX fare is the next best at around 2000$ and other are between 3-4000$. I think 1349$ is a really great price for a ULH PY flight , especially with a premiere airlines as SQ.

I Will on board inaugural flight on 12th from EWR in Premium economy. I paid around 900euros one way

mxp wrote:

I Will on board inaugural flight on 12th from EWR in Premium economy. I paid around 900euros one way

Looking forward to the trip report.

FlightLevel360 wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

MartijnNL wrote:

Not true!

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/new ... let-break/

Sorry, couldn't resist.

HaHaHa!

I challenge you to do the same - 17 hours without a toilet trip!

You don't need to put yourself through the torture of the actual flight, just the time!

If you succeed, I'll buy you pint of your favorite beer (I live in Belgium, so there is a bit of choice). And as a gesture of good will, I'll buy you 2 pints just before you start!

I recently took a flight JFK-HKG (16 hours) where BOTH of my seatmates (I was in the window) never went to the bathroom at all during the flight. That amazed me.

I always take the window, and usually wait for at least one other person to get up then I will too. On one flight, after 11 hours, the people hadn't budged, so finally I just said excuse me and had them get up to let me out. I've done HKG-LHR without going until I got the hotel, while I did not feel dehydrated, I did think it probably was not good for my system.

mxp wrote:

I Will on board inaugural flight on 12th from EWR in Premium economy. I paid around 900euros one way

WOW such a deal, looking forward toread that trip report...

TRB

Flighty wrote:

I wonder what real world routes SQ has in mind. EWR is known.

The routes have been known for a long time.

LAX was made public as soon as they announced the resumption of nonstops, as was (generically) NYC.

It was revealed a few months ago that EWR was again chosen to be the gateway, and that the additional aircraft would be used to increase both the LAX and SFO nonstops beyond daily; the latter eventually having nonstop service by both standard-configured A350s and by -ULR configured birds.

Justinkc wrote:

Agreed. Comparing SQ to Air China is a little silly too. I guess Air China gives you free secondhand smoke exposure from the pilots!

With all due respect, you sir seem to have a serious comprehension problem.
If the conjunction "but" was there instead of "though" you would have been right in your response.
But as it stands, you are completely off the mark. My sentence mean the opposite you wrongly assume it to state.Please read again.
I believe I am not in a position to be trying to educate you, as for all I know you might be a holder of multiple university degrees, but please look up the dictionary for "though" if you still can't get it.
Have a good day.

ojjunior wrote:

Try a 17+ hours leg in biz or 1st class then return in economy and tell us your experience later.

Been there done that and none the worse for it. Perhaps we do have different thresholds of pain/tolerance.

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.

That is an interesting question. The seatmaps on Seatguru from the normal A350 compared to the A350ULR look like they are totally different aircraft. So there seems to be a lot of artistic freedom in them.

If the A350ULR's seatmap is correct, the aircraft narrows down in the last rows, what would explain the 1-4-1 for a premium eco layout, while in the regular A350 where cheap Y is in the back, they might just squeeze the seats tighter together.

So Airbus market blablabla about the aircraft "not getting narrower in the back" could translate to the real-world meaning of "the aircraft narrows down only a bit, so you can still squeeze in the full number of economy seats." A squeeze that SQ probably didn't find appropriate for Premium Economy customers on a 17-18 hour flight.

CARST wrote:

So Airbus market blablabla about the aircraft "not getting narrower in the back" could translate to the real-world meaning of "the aircraft narrows down only a bit, so you can still squeeze in the full number of economy seats." A squeeze that SQ probably didn't find appropriate for Premium Economy customers on a 17-18 hour flight.

The A350 has a constant cabin width between doors one and four.

Since there are no seats ahead of door one or beyond door four, any change of seating at the very front or rear of the cabin is due to other operational reasons and has nothing to do with the cabin width.

scbriml wrote:

The A350 has a constant cabin width between doors one and four.

Since there are no seats ahead of door one or beyond door four, any change of seating at the very front or rear of the cabin is due to other operational reasons and has nothing to do with the cabin width.

Airbus "A350 Aircraft Charecteristics" document clearly shows the cabin getting narrows BEFORE doors 4L/R:



If you want to download the document, you will find it here:
https://www.airbus.com/aircraft/support ... stics.html

Or the direct link to the PDF file here:
https://www.airbus.com/content/dam/corp ... 0-1000.pdf

You can also hop over to Airbus CAD-drawings page, which lets you download CAD files you can open in a good CAD editor and see it there, too.

Also page 39 shows the last 3 or perhaps even 4 windows before door 4L/R being angled inward, because the cabin is getting narrower there:



A more detailed few of the back section is on page 72.

CARST wrote:

So Airbus market blablabla about the aircraft "not getting narrower in the back" could translate to the real-world meaning of "the aircraft narrows down only a bit, so you can still squeeze in the full number of economy seats." A squeeze that SQ probably didn't find appropriate for Premium Economy customers on a 17-18 hour flight.

CARST wrote:

Airbus "A350 Aircraft Charecteristics" document clearly shows the cabin getting narrows BEFORE doors 4L/R:

Also page 39 shows the last 3 or perhaps even 4 windows before door 4L/R being angled inward, because the cabin is getting narrower there:

Thank you.
If you are right, and it looks that way, then my earlier premise of the same is spot on after all.
We shall see.

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.

On the A345 it was not an issue flying to EWR, but the trash bins were an issue. The could have been bigger. I can only guess that it must have been worse with the initial mixed W/C configuration. I flew the route only on the full C configuration.

They already got the second delivered?

Kikko19 wrote:

They already got the second delivered?

They did:



V/F

Kikko19 wrote:

They already got the second delivered?

Awesome so they have 10 days to get ready for the SIN-EWR inaugural

mxp wrote:

I Will on board inaugural flight on 12th from EWR in Premium economy. I paid around 900euros one way

MXP, please check out seat "40C"; I'll be on SQ21 PY 01/2019.

mxp wrote:

I Will on board inaugural flight on 12th from EWR in Premium economy. I paid around 900euros one way

Could you please let us know what the last couple of 1-4-1 rows are like? I heard the solo window seats will have storage bins next to them. If possible, could you take a picture?

mxp wrote:

I Will on board inaugural flight on 12th from EWR in Premium economy. I paid around 900euros one way

I'm booked on the inaugural from EWR as well - only in C . I paid over 3000 euros one way though.
Looking forward to shake hands mxp!

So still no leaked pics of the interior since the plane was delivered

A picture of the new A350ULR Premium economy seat, with side bin has come out..... these are for the last three rows of the PE section at the back of the plane.



https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... 350-900ulr

HI folk
i reserved in fact one of the solo Seat 40C so surerly i will do a photo of it.
Alberto

Richard28 wrote:

A picture of the new A350ULR Premium economy seat, with side bin has come out..... these are for the last three rows of the PE section at the back of the plane.



https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... 350-900ulr

I wonder if there is something compromising the overhead locker space in these rows which makes this a necessity?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

I wonder if there is something compromising the overhead locker space in these rows which makes this a necessity?

V/F

Well, that is exactly where the crew rest area is for cabin staff.


IIRC from seeing that at Farnborough in 2016, the bins below the area were 'compromised' so this could well be SQ's way of compensating pax on such a long flight.

As I've tried to suggest all along, I don't think this has anything to do with alleged cabin taper.

scbriml wrote:

VirginFlyer wrote:

I wonder if there is something compromising the overhead locker space in these rows which makes this a necessity?

V/F

Well, that is exactly where the crew rest area is for cabin staff.

IIRC from seeing that at Farnborough in 2016, the bins below the area were 'compromised' so this could well be SQ's way of compensating pax on such a long flight.

As I've tried to suggest all along, I don't think this has anything to do with alleged cabin taper.

With only 8 across in Y+ though there is more room in the overheads for everyone’s bags. I don’t see why SQ would be so concerned about potential in cabin baggage storage issues on such a light configuration. Or why someone flying NYC/LAX-SIN would be more likely to have a lot more cabin luggage than say Europe-SIN or SFO-SIN. I’m inclined to believe the earlier suggestion that it is to get the aisles to line up with the typical A350 rear galley/lav configuration. Rather than just having a bunch of empty space they are filling it with the bin.

According to AusBT: https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... 350-900ulr

Singapore Airlines tells us the decision to add these six solo seats was made "in order not to compromise on the seat and aisle width. Side stowage was added to fully utilise the space available to ensure our customers have an enhanced experienced during the ultra-long flight."

Do the side bins border the aisle or window?