Has anyone else noticed the bump? Does that mean these will be the first regional aircraft to have WIFI?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
The SQ 787-10s
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by FN-GM View PostHas anyone else noticed the bump? Does that mean these will be the first regional aircraft to have WIFI?
I think the 787-10s will probably have Wifi but from which type, I'm guessing it'll be by Panasonic, it looks like the Ka Band. This surprised me too because Scoot has 787s that have no PTVs but they do have Wifi.Last edited by SQfanatic; 16 October 2017, 05:55 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by iSQream View PostAny reasons as to why the first plane is SCB but not SCA?.
Comment
-
Originally posted by iSQream View PostAny reasons as to why the first plane is SCB but not SCA?
Seems like MH and TG are doing the same. Their first A359s are 9M-MAB and HS-THB respectively.
Comment
-
The keys to the first 787-10 are expected to be handed over in the first few months of 2018, with a second to follow shortly after.
The jet has already been fitted with Singapore Airlines' all-new regional business class seats, which the Star Alliance member is keeping under the tightest of wraps.
Source: https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-a...fly-early-2018
I do hope that they will have 2-4-2 economy instead of 3-3-3 though, to maintain the comfort of passengers.
Comment
-
-
It depends on how SQ is going to compete with the Chinese carriers. SQ PVG and PEK fares are much higher than MU and CA. Load has been decent because of the comfort by 77W and 380. If SQ squeeze 3-3-3 into 787 for both routes then they risk losing this edge and open up a bigger can of worms.
Comment
-
I am resigned to the fact that SQ will most likely go for 9-abreast Y for their 787-10s, because they will be used for short regional routes.
For shorter sectors like SIN-BKK, SIN-HKG or SIN-MNL, I think SQ pax would not push back too hard on 3-3-3 in Y on a Dreamliner. I would personally still choose SQ on short sectors if they chose this config (Assuming IFE, meals and service remain at SQ standards).
I would object to longer 787 sectors like SIN-SYD or even SIN-HND in 9-abreast Y, though. And I would abandon SQ if they deployed 9-abreast 787's or 10-abreast 777's on long haul sectors like SIN-Europe or SIN-USA.
If SQ ever deployed Dreamliners for long haul/ultra long haul, then I think there could be a case for 8-abreast 2-4-2 in economy, similar to what JAL does (JAL has the only full service carrier 787 cabin that I would willingly fly, with a wonderful 2-4-2 layout in economy). But that does not seem to be in the plan.
Although airlines seem hell bent on persuading economy travellers that 9-abreast 787's and 10-abreast 777's are the new "standard", I will still avoid these configs on longer sectors when flying full service carriers.Last edited by yflyer; 18 October 2017, 10:29 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SQ_326 View PostIt depends on how SQ is going to compete with the Chinese carriers. SQ PVG and PEK fares are much higher than MU and CA. Load has been decent because of the comfort by 77W and 380. If SQ squeeze 3-3-3 into 787 for both routes then they risk losing this edge and open up a bigger can of worms.
It's likely the the 78-10s will be used on shorter, high volume routes with less competition. If SRJ/L can last so long in the fleet and still haul passengers to BKK and MNL without passengers abandoning SQ, surely a brand new 78-10 will be a welcome change.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SQ_326 View PostIf SQ squeeze 3-3-3 into 787 for both routes then they risk losing this edge and open up a bigger can of worms.
Comment
-
Unfortunately economics talks. People complain that SQ is too expensive. And passengers vote with their wallets to what they perceive value for money or for the lowest price option. Very few people,unless you are a seasoned traveler/airplane enthusiast, would bother with the plane type or plane seats.
Thus it is likely that SQ will go down the route of 3-3-3. I think each seat will be about 17.3 inches wide I hope. My only hope is that they won't reduce the seat pitch from 32 to 31/30. That would be horrible.
And I hope SQ doesn't end up becoming a budget carrier down at the back with bare bones service while becoming premium upfront. It might go this way.
Comment
Comment