# Longest Nonstop Flight to be cancelled



## Ryan (Oct 24, 2013)

Singapore Airlines 21/22 from Newark is getting the axe.

CNN has a pretty decent article that covers not only that flight but discusses the ultra-longhauls in general:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/19/travel/worlds-longest-flight/?iref=obnetwork


----------



## jis (Oct 24, 2013)

I had flown it several times. The problem with the SQ long range flights was that they required a special subfleet which was cost prohibitive to use for anything else. The special J only 340-500s are coming due for significant maintenance cycle and SQ decided to bail. It would be interesting to see what they do with those aircraft next.

When a ULR (Ultra Long Range) flight can be operated by a run of the mill aircraft from the general fleet they seem to do OK, like the EWR to Hong Kong or Delhi or Mumbai flights. All use run of the mill 777-200ERs at almost the limit of their range.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 24, 2013)

After the heavy check, SQ is likely to reconfigure the 345s and reassign them. The only thing that surprises me about 21/22 is why it took SQ so long to accept reality. If Brent Crude remains at or above USD 100, no four-engine aircraft will cut it on an ULR route -- unless load factors are phenomenal with a high proportion of full-fare tickets.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 24, 2013)

jis said:


> I had flown it several times. The problem with the SQ long range flights was that they required a special subfleet which was cost prohibitive to use for anything else. The special J only 340-500s are coming due for significant maintenance cycle and SQ decided to bail. It would be interesting to see what they do with those aircraft next.
> 
> When a ULR (Ultra Long Range) flight can be operated by a run of the mill aircraft from the general fleet they seem to do OK, like the EWR to Hong Kong or Delhi or Mumbai flights. All use run of the mill 777-200ERs at almost the limit of their range.


You mean 777-300ER? Those are the planes flying HKG-JFK. The 777-200LR isn't doing that great but it does still fly many ULR routes like ATL-JNB, DOH-IAH, DXB-DFW, among others. Interesting to nate that the longest passenger flight still scheduled is a Qantas 747 flying SYD-DFW.

These 777-300ERs really get a lot done, at this point they're flying longer routes then the dedicated -200LR!


----------



## jis (Oct 25, 2013)

No I mean 777-200ER. That is what United flies. They do not have any 300s.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 25, 2013)

jis said:


> The problem with the SQ long range flights was that they required a special subfleet which was cost prohibitive to use for anything else.


Having to maintain a rather unique model that lacked commonality with the rest of the fleet was almost certainly part of it. These flights seemed to be a sort of test of customer goals, and I suppose in that sense the were a success, but the idea of saving a connection was not nearly enough of a benefit to make flying in coach worth the trouble. The entire coach cabin was eventually removed, but even an all business class interior couldn't overcome restrictions on carrying profitable levels of freight or replace that lost revenue with enough additional passenger dollars to balance the equation.

As for myself I love to fly, but even I begin to run out of patience for a single flight around the 10 hour mark. I can last up to maybe 15 hours in a single plane at the absolute limit of my ability, but by then I'm already hating the trip. I've actually flown for thirty hours and more over a dozen times without issue, but only so long as there are breaks in the trip where I can leave the plane to walk and stretch or explore something new for a change. For me saving a connection really only makes things worse with no real benefit. Maybe if premium tickets didn't cost $15,000 or if there were "slumber coach" style beds with open seating bars and lounges it wouldn't seem so bad, but I don't see that happening.



jis said:


> The special J only 340-500s are coming due for significant maintenance cycle and SQ decided to bail. It would be interesting to see what they do with those aircraft next.


&


xyzzy said:


> After the heavy check, SQ is likely to reconfigure the 345s and reassign them.


Considering that this is SQ we're talking about my guess is that these planes end up with another airline or exchanged for another model or left in a desert storage area somewhere. The idea that these 345's would end up on another route in the SQ system seems exceedingly unlikely to me.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 25, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Considering that this is SQ we're talking about my guess is that these planes end up with another airline or exchanged for another model or left in a desert storage area somewhere. The idea that these 345's would end up on another route in the SQ system seems exceedingly unlikely to me.


The 345s are 10 years old. What other airline would want them? That said, SQ did dump their 343s of the same age.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 25, 2013)

xyzzy said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that this is SQ we're talking about my guess is that these planes end up with another airline or exchanged for another model or left in a desert storage area somewhere. The idea that these 345's would end up on another route in the SQ system seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
> ...


I doubt many commercial airlines would want a fleet of used all-J 345's, but I also don't think a low cycle airline like SQ needs a future buyer banging on their door before they decide to divest a handful of 345's. My guess is that most commercial 345's will eventually end up re-purposed as VIP transports for heads of state and dictators of oil rich countries in a method no different than dozens of kerosene guzzling 747-SP's that came before them. They could also end up in the hands of folks who desire ULH operations while wanting to avoid appearing too close to Boeing or too distant from Airbus.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 25, 2013)

jis said:


> No I mean 777-200ER. That is what United flies. They do not have any 300s.


Yes, my bad. I should've known, a friend of mine flew that route back when it was CO. I'm just saying that the -300ER is a lot more popular than anything else right now.

I've never flown on one, how's the ex-CO -200ERs? The UA -200ERs are not good.



xyzzy said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > Considering that this is SQ we're talking about my guess is that these planes end up with another airline or exchanged for another model or left in a desert storage area somewhere. The idea that these 345's would end up on another route in the SQ system seems exceedingly unlikely to me.
> ...


No one wants A345s anymore, the 777-200LR has longer range and higher efficiency. In fact, no one wants any A340s at all anymore. If someone's looking for a cheap used widebody, they'll be better off buying a used A330 or 767.

These planes may get scrapped or converted to freighters.


----------



## jis (Oct 25, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > No I mean 777-200ER. That is what United flies. They do not have any 300s.
> ...


Ex United 777-200ERs are P&W powered and I do not think they have the range to make it from Newark to Hong Kong. ex-Continental 777-20ERs are GE90 powered and are some of the most capable 200ERs around.
Yes, it is true that once 300ERs became available they certainly are the plane of choice in that class as they are more capable all around than any 200.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 25, 2013)

jis said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I din't know the GE 90 could be put on a 200 but I see on Boeing website that the 200ER can get the GE 90-94B. Good range on that thing.

How's that plane on a long flight? Never done a CO 777.


----------



## jis (Oct 25, 2013)

It's good. I regularly do the non stop EWR - DEL and vice versa on the sub-polar route. Nice flight, specially up front.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 25, 2013)

jis said:


> It's good. I regularly do the non stop EWR - DEL and vice versa on the sub-polar route. Nice flight, specially up front.


They do look pretty good from a random cabin search. Do they fly out of anywhere in the Western US or is IAH the closest place where I can catch one?


----------



## jis (Oct 26, 2013)

So far only EWR and IAH, but that could change in 2014 as United starts mixing things up.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 27, 2013)

Flying out of IAH on SQ had a lot of promise but was a bit of a mess in my experience.

I prefer connections to ULH and in that regard the IAH-DME-SIN route sounded great.

Unfortunately the "connection" in Moscow is so backwards that it beggars belief.

Taking HKG-YVR-JFK on CX gets you a better connection but with a worse schedule.

One thing SQ does have over CX is a significantly better coach experience.

The food in CX coach is pretty bad and the seat pitch is truly horrible.

I think the CX Business cabin is equal to SQ although CX First was a bit underwhelming.

On the other hand you can still use OW points on CX while SQ premium cabins are off limits to *A.


----------



## xyzzy (Oct 27, 2013)

CX business is nice.


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 27, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> .....
> 
> Taking HKG-YVR-JFK on CX gets you a better connection but with a worse schedule.
> 
> .....


CX flies nonstop JFK-HKG with a 777-367ER , no stop in YVR. SQ is not a good option if you're going to Japan or China becuase you have to take a big detour. They do have LAX-NRT-SIN and SFO-HKG-SIN but those aren't much city pairs.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 27, 2013)

Swadian Hardcore said:


> CX flies nonstop JFK-HKG with a 777-367ER , no stop in YVR. SQ is not a good option if you're going to Japan or China becuase you have to take a big detour. They do have LAX-NRT-SIN and SFO-HKG-SIN but those aren't much city pairs.


CX does indeed offer a nonstop flight but I actually prefer to break up the monotony of flying 15+ hours in a single segment. In previous years Japan was well served from the US by JL, before they imploded and went through bankruptcy. Japan also has NH but I'm not as familiar with them. As for "big" detours to Asia in some sense it's all relative. When you're flying thirty hours what's a couple more here or there in the grand scheme of things? The big hit on SQ is that SIN itself isn't nearly as interesting as HKG proper, to me anyway.


----------



## railiner (Oct 27, 2013)

I love long marathon flights, as well as train or bus or car rides....I am depressed when they reach their destination....I just want to keep going.

I have gone from New York City to Fairbanks, Ak. by bus, with only one overnite stop enroute....have ridden a marathon ride over most of the Amtrak system on a 30 day USA rail pass....have driven a car from Denver to New York, with one 12 hour stop, immediately taken Amtrak back to Denver, rested another 12 hours, and then drove a second car to New York this time nonstop....and finally flew round-the world in three days with two nights in a hotel....JFK-NRT-HKG-LHR-JFK....

When I retire, my gift to myself will be a greater than 100 day round-the-world cruise on Cunard....


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 27, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Swadian Hardcore said:
> 
> 
> > CX flies nonstop JFK-HKG with a 777-367ER , no stop in YVR. SQ is not a good option if you're going to Japan or China becuase you have to take a big detour. They do have LAX-NRT-SIN and SFO-HKG-SIN but those aren't much city pairs.
> ...


You might want to try out NH. I've never flown them but they have a very good reputation and they go to many cites in the US. At this point they are even bigger than JL. NH is a Star Alliance member, so you could earn some more United miles on NH.



railiner said:


> I love long marathon flights, as well as train or bus or car rides....I am depressed when they reach their destination....I just want to keep going.
> 
> I have gone from New York City to Fairbanks, Ak. by bus, with only one overnite stop enroute....have ridden a marathon ride over most of the Amtrak system on a 30 day USA rail pass....have driven a car from Denver to New York, with one 12 hour stop, immediately taken Amtrak back to Denver, rested another 12 hours, and then drove a second car to New York this time nonstop....and finally flew round-the world in three days with two nights in a hotel....JFK-NRT-HKG-LHR-JFK....
> 
> When I retire, my gift to myself will be a greater than 100 day round-the-world cruise on Cunard....


Woah, you sure do your travelling! I understand that first line but it only applies to me on a smaller scale, I've never flown continuosly round-the-world. Have done it in segments.


----------



## railiner (Oct 27, 2013)

I acutually managed to spend two nights at a Tokyo hotel, with a full day of touring there, and also most of a day touring Hong Kong, as well in that time....

I left JFK on AA on a Monday mid day flight, arrived Tokyo that evening, although now Tuesday, due to crossing dateline, left Tokyo Thursday morning, arrived Hong Kong later that morning, left Hong Kong late that night, arrived London Friday morning, continue onto JFK, arriving Friday afternoon.

So it was actually four days, not three. Flew AA-ANA-CX-AA....


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 28, 2013)

railiner said:


> I love long marathon flights, as well as train or bus or car rides....I am depressed when they reach their destination....I just want to keep going. I have gone from New York City to Fairbanks, Ak. by bus, with only one overnite stop enroute....have ridden a marathon ride over most of the Amtrak system on a 30 day USA rail pass....have driven a car from Denver to New York, with one 12 hour stop, immediately taken Amtrak back to Denver, rested another 12 hours, and then drove a second car to New York this time nonstop....and finally flew round-the world in three days with two nights in a hotel....JFK-NRT-HKG-LHR-JFK.


When I was younger marathon trips were more appealing. Driving nonstop for 1,700 miles from San Antonio to San Francisco? Sure. Driving 1,800 miles nonstop from New York to San Antonio? No problem. Flying 15,000 miles just to visit Tokyo over the weekend? Piece of cake. However, as I get older I don’t enjoy constant travel in the same way I did when I was younger. On my last trip to Asia I scheduled stopovers in Los Angeles and Hong Kong where I could get off the plane, leave the airport, and sleep in a real bed. Whether by plane, train, or automobile I’m just not a fan of constant movement in a cramped area. Even when traveling in an international first class cabin there’s still something important to be gained by taking breaks along the way.


----------



## fairviewroad (Oct 28, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> I prefer connections to ULH and in that regard the IAH-DME-SIN route sounded great.
> 
> Unfortunately the "connection" in Moscow is so backwards that it beggars belief.


Could you elaborate?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 28, 2013)

fairviewroad said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer connections to ULH and in that regard the IAH-DME-SIN route sounded great.
> ...


Let me start by describing the connection through Vancouver and then comparing it to the Moscow experience.

In Vancouver the plane lands and everyone gets off.

*1.* Passengers and luggage that are connecting to the same aircraft are handed the connection pass and screened all at once right there at the gate. You're sealed in but you still have access to the essential services such as drinks, snacks, and restrooms. Most of the airport is fast asleep anyhow. Once you're done with the single security stage there's no need to do anything but sit and wait for reboarding. If there's anything you need from the airline clerks are there to assist you.

Now, let's talk about Mosow's Domodedovo experience.

In Moscow the plane lands and everyone gets off. So far so good.

*1.* The first stage of the connection process is where you must pickup a connection pass. However, unlike with other airports it's actually possible to miss this step if the airport staff don't see you or if they simply choose to leave the jetway before all passengers have deplaned. If you somehow miss collecting this pass then things can get rather interesting toward the end of a long and convoluted connection process.

*2.* The second stage is where you haul your luggage up and down stairs. No silly escalators or elevators or conveyors here, just bog standard steps as old as engineering itself. For the physically fit who pack light this is of no specific concern, but for those who are out of shape or who pack heavy you'd better be careful. Maybe everything was simply out of order or maybe some gates simply don't have access to people movers. Either possibility sounds equally plausible to me.

*3. *The third stage is the passenger manifest reconciliation station where someone takes their sweet time looking up passengers, looking bored, chatting with other staff, and randomly allowing people who apparently can't compreend queing to cut in front of everyone else.

*4. *The fourth stage is the DIY luggage scanning station where no sign and no person explains any of the scanning expectations or related criteria or provides or collects bins or anything like that. You just place things wherever and however you assume is desired and wait for someone to stop you. Half the time the staff didn't appear to be focused on the scanning process and if anyone stopped you it was generally another passenger trying to get somebody's luggage out of the way.

*5. *The fifth stage is at the passport control. The process here is easy enough to comprehend so long as you don't miss the station entirely, which is surprisingly easy since it looks like an empty podium off to the side, at which point you're likely to see the rather indifferent staff suddenly become rather loud and animated.

*6. *The sixth stage is where you and your luggage are scanned at the departure gate, although with lot more manual fiddling and fumbling than during the previous scans. Although you can presumably leave the gate and reenter the airport you would be supremely foolish to do so as the reentry process could leave you stuck at the entrace for a surprisingy long time.

To be fair, Domodedovo was blown to hell and back not that long ago while Vancouver has largely avoided serious harm and destruction. However, having connected through both airports it's not entirely clear to me how Moscow is accomplising anything that Vancouver is not. It just seems to take a lot longer to process everyone, to the point that it seems entirely possible you could miss your connection back onto the same aircraft you arrived on, which would be seem virtually impossible at an airport like Vancouver.

Many of these complaints probably sound like immaterial first world problems, and in some sense that's exactly what they are, but the fact remains that if Moscow is trying to cater to first world travelers they've largely failed.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 28, 2013)

Chris: Russia has always had this Problem even in the Bad Old Cold War Days when the Agents/Guards were all KGB Thugs and All Americans were considered to be "Spys" and Saboteurs! Vancouver, on the other hand, has Always had People Friendly Canadians staffing it's Airport which has gone from a Small City Airport to a Major International Areodome!

The only question I have is who would want to go to Moscow that didn't Absolutely have too?! :help:


----------



## jis (Oct 28, 2013)

Moscow is actually quite an interesting city provided you have someone local that you can go around with. I have been there both by train and plane, and would gladly go there again. There is something to say, from a railfan perspective, to see the parade of overnight Sleeper services coming into Leningradski and Yaroslavski, which are adjacent to each other, every morning. All at least 20 cars long.

The first time through Moscow for me was actually transit through Sheremetyevo before there was any commercial Domodedovo. The first thing they did there at the door of the plane was to take your Passport away and give you a reboarding card, different from your original boarding card. You would get your Passport back only at the door of the plane when you presented your reboarding card. I don't know and don't want to know what happened if you misplaced your reboarding card.

This was back in 1965, and the Air India 707 was the only commercial jet aircraft at the airport for the brief period that we were there. The Russian tea and snacks at the airport lounge were a nice touch. The main runway was lined with MiGs ready to go.

My visit to the city were all after the wall and the Comrades fell. But still overt racism and incredible corruption are both alive and well in Moscow, and the mix is not very nice for the victims of such.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Oct 28, 2013)

I'll take your word for this jis, I've only been there once for Three Days and it was in Winter!  ( I wasn't there as a Tourist) and I Hated Everything I saw in this Gigantic IceBox of a City, but times Do Change! I didn't get to see Red Square except from the Outside and thought that Everything was Stuck in the 1950s and was Slowly Moldering Away as the Communist Machine was Grinding to a Halt! (This was in the early 70s) Same thoughts about East Berlin vs. West Berlin before the Wall Came Down!!!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Oct 28, 2013)

Singapore is going to sell possibly all the A340-500s to Aerolineas Argentinas. See discussion on A-net: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5906785/.

Possible routes included Buenos Aires-Auckland, -Sydney, -Madrid, and other cites in Europe.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Oct 29, 2013)

jimhudson said:


> The only question I have is who would want to go to Moscow that didn't Absolutely have too?!


 Originally the trip included a few days in Moscow just for the heck of it. Later on my vacation schedule shrank due to competing interests and something had to go. For an American living it up in Thailand is amazingly easy and inexpensive while living it up in Moscow is a rather tedious and costly proposition. One night at a fancy hotel in Moscow could buy you an entire week of luxury accommodations in Thailand. When I realized Americans need to request a formal "invitation" just to be let into the country I had heard enough and Moscow got the boot. I can't pass judgement on Moscow itself since we never left the airport, and to be fair part of the reason their visa policy is so punitive is because that's how their own citizens are treated by the US. However, based on the behavior of the domestic staff and passengers I really don't see the appeal. If you travel internationally it's not uncommon to bump into a Russian businessman or oil worker randomly shouting up a storm far away from mother Russia. One by themselves is annoying but a million of them shouting at each other would be absolutely deafening. My advice when traveling abroad is to stick to the smaller countries. The big countries (esp. Russia, USA, China, etc) tend to have loud and arrogant citizens while the small countries tend to be more relaxed and peaceful by comparison. That's my view anyway.



Swadian Hardcore said:


> Singapore is going to sell possibly all the A340-500s to Aerolineas Argentinas. See discussion on A-net: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5906785/. Possible routes included Buenos Aires-Auckland, -Sydney, -Madrid, and other cites in Europe.


If true it sounds as though AR isn't as worried about the maximum range or payload so much as avoiding ETOPS restrictions. Should be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------

