Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5594829/

Topic: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: sfoa380
Posted 2012-10-24 07:08:59 and read 25913 times.

This appears in the article about the big SQ order and deserves its own thread...

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...pore_business/view/1233225/1/.html

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Tdan
Posted 2012-10-24 07:11:27 and read 25954 times.

This was inevitable. SQ could never figure out how to make these routes work in a high fuel environment and notorious A345 fuel hogs. Sad to see them go from a spotters perspective.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2012-10-24 07:11:49 and read 25913 times.

The link does not work  

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: sfoa380
Posted 2012-10-24 07:15:05 and read 25894 times.

Sorry--don't know what happened--this one should work

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...pore_business/view/1233225/1/.html

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: planemannyc
Posted 2012-10-24 07:16:15 and read 25844 times.

USA Today also picked up on it:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayi...e-airlines-longest-flight/1653833/

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-10-24 07:18:08 and read 25792 times.

It's a shame, will they retain EWR services and run it through a Star hub as before (EWR-FRA-SIN).

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-24 07:23:28 and read 25734 times.

Quoting Tdan (Reply 1):
SQ could never figure out how to make these routes work in a high fuel environment and notorious A345 fuel hogs.

They made it work for longer than TG did.  

Honestly, I'm not sure the 777-200LR would have saved this route (or TG's). While flight-planning projections I have seen show the 777-200LR burned about 20% less fuel on the mission (at the same payload weight), those projections also showed that the savings worked out to about $20,000 per trip / $15,000,000 per year with a fuel price of $1.95/USG. The current spot price is now $3.19 so while the savings would now be close to $32,000 per trip, the 777-200LR's fuel bill would be higher today then the A340-500's was at the time the original projections were run.

If SQ was filling all 100 seats on the A340-500, then the route still would have been profitable. But clearly they were not, and the route was losing money. So applying the same loads to the 777-200LR would still have generated a loss, just not quite as large, but I believe large enough to warrant closing the service.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2012-10-24 07:23:34 and read 25724 times.

Thanks for that SFO. It looks like given the fleet orders by SQ, the only aircraft which could service these routes in the future would be the 359 (which I would assume they ordered). No other a/c in their fleet could operate these routes without significant penalties.

Interesting times ahead. I wonder how this affects the rumor that SQ is negotiating to be the launch customer for the 787-10?

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-24 07:25:35 and read 25686 times.

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 7):
It looks like given the fleet orders by SQ, the only aircraft which could service these routes in the future would be the 359 (which I would assume they ordered). No other a/c in their fleet could operate these routes without significant penalties.

Well they could add the 777-200LR, but see above.

The 777-8XLR could also be a future option. Not sure how a hypothetical 251t MTOW "787-8LR" would work out...

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: sonomaflyer
Posted 2012-10-24 07:32:36 and read 25533 times.

I don't see a 251t 788 being produced within the foreseeable future. As the 788 program matures, they will trim weight and improve engine efficiency. Perhaps this route could work with an all J class 788 going forward but SQ won't have 787's in their fleet. They are trending Airbus. The lack of a 787 order for SQ tells me they will eventually phase out their 77W's in favor or an Airbus replacement.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LondonCity
Posted 2012-10-24 07:36:10 and read 25476 times.

It looks as though the news of the ending of these ultra long-haul flights was buried within the new aircraft order announcement.

There is some further analysis in Business Traveller. I chuckled when I read what AF's ex-CEO Pierre-Henri Gourgeon thought of the A340-500s when he described them as "flying fuel tankers with few people on board."

http://www.businesstraveller.com/new...non-stop-flying-to-los-angeles-and

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-10-24 07:37:54 and read 25475 times.

Wow!

I was always shocked this was at EWR instead of JFK...but either way the equation (ULH, fewer seats, high fuel) does not make this flight work.

Quite the blow to EWR. I dare say they should ax EWR altogether...how many money losers NYC-FRA do they need? They already run the route from JFK and it is being downgraded from 380 to 777

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: qf002
Posted 2012-10-24 07:41:27 and read 25378 times.

This is the sort of route that could have worked 15 years ago. It's just not viable to run these sorts of very long flights any more unless they are connecting really major hubs where the traffic is virtually guaranteed to come.

I am a little disappointed I'll never get a chance to do the flight though, as I doubt we'll see it return until something really major shakes up aviation (ie a completely new concept aircraft).

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-10-24 07:48:35 and read 25222 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 11):
They already run the route from JFK and it is being downgraded from 380 to 777

When the decision was made, EWR was not a star alliance powerhouse. Now it is. LH really should ramp up operations there too, but we know like LHR, ppl outside the US automatically think "go to JFK". That is of course changing and I could see at some point UAL moving the PS shuttle across.... if they did that, they could combine some flights and send widebody aircraft at a few peak times, shuttling them inbetween hubs before they go off intercontinentally at each end, which would give them an advantage over the competition. particularly on the red eye. Even though UAL and singapore are hardly the best of friends, it does give Singapore's loyal star flyers a better connection option, at taps into the massive UAL frequent flyer base in the area much better. I could see a strong business case for SIA sending the smaller 777 to JFK to maintain a presence, and sending the A380 to EWR to maintain volume, get CASM right down, and fill it from UAL's huge connection possibilities. IE - premium class traffic largely headed to NYC, and fill up half of the back with locals and the other half from the UAL network.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Newark727
Posted 2012-10-24 07:50:23 and read 25192 times.

Aww man, I always liked spotting the A340-500, it was like a giant DC-8 Super Seventy. Still, I can't say I'm altogether surprised, it seems like that sort of route+business plan only works for certain city pairs under certain conditions.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: ordjoe
Posted 2012-10-24 08:04:48 and read 25021 times.

Too bad, I always heard it was filled with, and SQ does not really discount those J seats or give them out as awards, but still even with all the wall street types filling it is still is not enough. This is a blow ULH for sure, so what is the I guess ATL-JNB is now the longest once this ends

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: g500
Posted 2012-10-24 08:15:07 and read 24933 times.

I'm hoping SQ will eventually add a second A380 flight SIN-NRT-LAX to make up for the non-stop cancellation

we'll see what happens

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2012-10-24 08:19:09 and read 24881 times.

A shame, hopefully the A345s will find a new home, probably as a gorgeous private jet!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: usairways85
Posted 2012-10-24 08:28:54 and read 24782 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 11):
Quite the blow to EWR. I dare say they should ax EWR altogether...how many money losers NYC-FRA do they need? They already run the route from JFK and it is being downgraded from 380 to 777

That is likely because LH already serves FRA-JFK/EWR quite well. SQ upping it from a 744 to a A380 was probably way to much capacity.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: vincewy
Posted 2012-10-24 08:33:32 and read 24720 times.

Quoting g500 (Reply 16):
I'm hoping SQ will eventually add a second A380 flight SIN-NRT-LAX to make up for the non-stop cancellation

SQ had in the past LAX-TPE-SIN (night) and LAX-NRT-SIN (day), both dailies. If SQ ever wants to resume redeye from LAX, it should fly through HND, PVG, ICN, or HKG instead. I doubt getting 5th freedom rights from those hubs will be easy.

NH is already flying LAX-HND redeye.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: avek00
Posted 2012-10-24 08:36:29 and read 24632 times.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13):
When the decision was made, EWR was not a star alliance powerhouse. Now it is. LH really should ramp up operations there too, but we know like LHR, ppl outside the US automatically think "go to JFK". That is of course changing and I could see at some point UAL moving the PS shuttle across.... if they did that, they could combine some flights and send widebody aircraft at a few peak times, shuttling them inbetween hubs before they go off intercontinentally at each end, which would give them an advantage over the competition. particularly on the red eye. Even though UAL and singapore are hardly the best of friends, it does give Singapore's loyal star flyers a better connection option, at taps into the massive UAL frequent flyer base in the area much better. I could see a strong business case for SIA sending the smaller 777 to JFK to maintain a presence, and sending the A380 to EWR to maintain volume, get CASM right down, and fill it from UAL's huge connection possibilities. IE - premium class traffic largely headed to NYC, and fill up half of the back with locals and the other half from the UAL network.

1. Newark is not equipped to handle the A380.

2. SQ will almost certainly continue to prioritize connecting traffic over JFK, just as most international carriers that serve both EWR and JFK do.

3. SQ sees the new United (and the new Delta) as major competitve threats to its North American services. The USA carriers have retooled themselves on costs, are leveraging fleet flexibility to unprecedented levels, and have increased premium cabin product quality to levels that are acceptable to business travelers. There's little desire on either side of the Pacific for SQ and UA to work more closely together than the Star Alliance requires.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Lufthansa
Posted 2012-10-24 08:41:09 and read 24561 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 17):

A shame, hopefully the A345s will find a new home, probably as a gorgeous private jet!

since it looks like most of the fleet will be dumped, across the globe (i think thai's are parked at don muang?) I wonder if a good role for these aircraft lies with the military, who aren't so concerned about fuel burn?

They could potentially make a very good tanker. They can uplift lots, have lots of range, could be used as a troop transporter as well as a tanker. It's been called by some as a ridicule a 'flying fuel tanker'... so if that's what its good at why not put it to use for that very purpose? Sure its full range will never be needed in this role, but it has the potential to lift lots of very heavy cargo, or refuel lots of jets by uploading vast quantities of fuel, the rest of the A340 program will ensure a steady flow of parts and support (much easier than say, a VC-10 for instance) and they probably can be bought relatively cheaply. The A330 military version allows for a full PAX interior, so make it attractive to governments around the role by saying duel purpose... and fit the front of the cabin with a very nice first class. Therefore when its not needed for air force duties, it can be called on to fly VIP's over long distances (im thinking the British PM for example who politically won't be allowed to buy a dedicated plane for some stupid reason) and of course transport troops. The global fleet of them is relatively small and all the equipment developed for the A330 MRTT probably could easily be applied. And if it isn't politically correct in the west, well, the chinese could probably take 30 of them without too many issues.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-10-24 08:49:52 and read 24472 times.

These flights have been struggling for a while.

Remember SQ announced it would reintroduce Y+ last March on the A345.
SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345 US Nonstops... (by hodja Mar 28 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Also for several years now they have been playing with frequency going less then daily for various periods.


Anyhow for fun here is their 2011 load factors on the routes:

EWR
Jan - 77
Feb - 63
Mar - 80
Apr - 61
May - 83
Jun - 78
Jul - 72
Aug - 59
Sep - 76
Oct - 72
Nov - 60
Dec - 60
Average = 70.1%

LAX
Jan - 76
Feb - 74
Mar - 70
Apr - 73
May - 86
Jun - 82
Jul - 77
Aug - 69
Sep - 80
Oct - 81
Nov - 77
Dec - 69
Average = 76.2%

Quoting vincewy (Reply 19):
SQ had in the past LAX-TPE-SIN (night) and LAX-NRT-SIN (day), both dailies. If SQ ever wants to resume redeye from LAX, it should fly through HND, PVG, ICN, or HKG instead. I doubt getting 5th freedom rights from those hubs will be easy.

For LAX, I am sure SQ will resurect its 3rd flight (which would now become the 2nd one).
SQ already holds rights to operate via a host of stops including TPE, ICN, HKG, KIX, etc..

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-24 08:52:06 and read 24427 times.

Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 17):
A shame, hopefully the A345s will find a new home, probably as a gorgeous private jet!

Airbus agreed to take them in as trade on the A350+A380 deal. I expect they'll be broken up and sold as OEM spares as the planes are worth far more in pieces than complete.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: olympic472
Posted 2012-10-24 08:59:35 and read 24354 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 20):
3. SQ sees the new United (and the new Delta) as major competitve threats to its North American services. The USA carriers have retooled themselves on costs, are leveraging fleet flexibility to unprecedented levels, and have increased premium cabin product quality to levels that are acceptable to business travelers. There's little desire on either side of the Pacific for SQ and UA to work more closely together than the Star Alliance requires.

Insightful and well stated.
The "non-cooperation" from scheduling to lounge makes me think that they are in different Alliances.

Reading the posts here and previous posts, there are so many that believed in the SQ KoolAid. This is hardly a surprise if they have flown this sector and understand the numbers.

As previously suggested, they will make good tankers and troop carriers for the RSAF. Despite the fact that they are traded back to Airbus as part of the 380 and 350 deal.

[Edited 2012-10-24 09:05:47]

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-24 09:02:14 and read 25608 times.

Quoting olympic472 (Reply 24):
The "non-cooperation" from scheduling to lounge makes me think that they are in different Alliances.

SQ has always struck me as an airline that considered Star more an alliance of convenience than as an actual strategic alliance.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: kaitak
Posted 2012-10-24 09:02:40 and read 25542 times.

Sad to see, purely from an enthusiasts' perspective; one less airline to fly A345s on and five fewer of the most beautiful aircraft flying today.

 

Not that surprising from an economics perspective.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: migair54
Posted 2012-10-24 09:15:40 and read 26036 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):

Actually the load factor of 76% is not bad, but if they can´t manage to make money with that load factor is better to reroute the flight and try to make more money somewhere else. I´m sure they will add a second LAX flight soon, they can´t reduce the high yield seat so drastically, a load factor of 76% using a plane with almost 100 seats is easy to calculate so the pax are there, now they only need to keep them flying with them using 1 stop.
We are talking about a huge number of business class pax, 30 days a month with 76 pax a day is 2.280 pax to LAX a month and 30 day with 70 pax a day is 2.100 pax a month to NYC.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Airbus agreed to take them in as trade on the A350+A380 deal. I expect they'll be broken up and sold as OEM spares as the planes are worth far more in pieces than complete.

That would make a lot of sense, we all know that an A345 has no value as full plane except for some VIP and still difficult to sell.


What if SQ get the 5 B777LR that AI is trying to sell, could they make it work in this routes??

Quoting olympic472 (Reply 24):
As previously suggested, they will make good tankers and troop carriers for the RSAF.

I think Airbus idea for this issue is offer the A330 MRTT and not the 340 to develop a new version, specially with so few A345 in service.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-10-24 09:31:44 and read 25703 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 20):
3. SQ sees the new United (and the new Delta) as major competitve threats to its North American services. The USA carriers have retooled themselves on costs, are leveraging fleet flexibility to unprecedented levels, and have increased premium cabin product quality to levels that are acceptable to business travelers. There's little desire on either side of the Pacific for SQ and UA to work more closely together than the Star Alliance requires.

But then again, how many Star carriers are SQ actually working closely with anyway ? The fact that SQ is doing fine even on their 5th freedom segments is a testament to the strength of the SQ brand.

EWR-SIN shutting down is more economic reality than problems at SQ. If 100 all J seats at 90+% load factor (and no cheapo TOD upgrades) can't get it to work, no carrier on earth could. Maybe a 787-9LR could finally make it profitable and sustainable.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-10-24 09:40:50 and read 25490 times.

I think I am going to break with my First to Fly habit this time. I'd really like the idea of being "last to fly" the world's longest route on that final EWR-SIN Singapore Airlines A345 flight.

Seems that it's going to be Q4 of 2013?

I can just imagine 18 straight hours partying in the sky. I am a taker!
They better plan on having loads of Dom Pérignon on board!

           

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-10-24 09:43:15 and read 25470 times.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 28):
What if SQ get the 5 B777LR that AI is trying to sell, could they make it work in this routes??

If SQ is actually averaging a 76-80% load factor, than the 20% fuel savings of the 777-200LR over the A340-500 might very well have kept the route viable. However, you'd have to factor in the capital costs of buying the 777-200LR, which would eat into the fuel savings.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-10-24 10:00:20 and read 24874 times.

Quoting Tdan (Reply 1):
This was inevitable. SQ could never figure out how to make these routes work in a high fuel environment and notorious A345 fuel hogs. Sad to see them go from a spotters perspective.

I wonder if the 787/A350 could do such a route with such a seating layout.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 30):
I think I am going to break with my First to Fly habit this time. I'd really like the idea of being "last to fly" the world's longest route on that final EWR-SIN Singapore Airlines A345 flight.

I hope you post a trip report  
Quoting kaitak (Reply 26):
Not that surprising from an economics perspective.

Exactly. Sad but true.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: IrishAyes
Posted 2012-10-24 10:09:09 and read 24799 times.

Well, this will create some bragging rights for any DFW or SYD-based fans. Now, QF 7 will officially become the world's longest route (although it still remains the #1 route for the world's longest flight in economy).

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-10-24 10:12:03 and read 24687 times.

Quoting migair54 (Reply 28):
Actually the load factor of 76% is not bad, but if they can´t manage to make money with that load factor is better to reroute the flight and try to make more money somewhere else.

These are not normal flights.

We are talking about ULH flights where the block times are at 18:30 and 17:45 respectively.

Currently I doubt even close to 100% LF would be profitable on such segments on a uber high CASM A345.

Also remember back when the routes first launched in 2004, crude oil averaged $37.66 per barrel. 2011 it was $93.02 !

I suspect SQ has hung on to these flights for prestige purposes for quite some time....

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-24 10:55:51 and read 23758 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
It's a shame, will they retain EWR services and run it through a Star hub as before (EWR-FRA-SIN).

I suspect they'll drop EWR and just stick with the "international gateway/prestige" NYC area airport, JFK.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13):
I could see a strong business case for SIA sending the smaller 777 to JFK to maintain a presence, and sending the A380 to EWR to maintain volume, get CASM right down, and fill it from UAL's huge connection possibilities.

We'll never see an A380 at EWR and SQ will always favor JFK over EWR.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: ipodguy7
Posted 2012-10-24 12:20:02 and read 22389 times.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 33):
Well, this will create some bragging rights for any DFW or SYD-based fans. Now, QF 7 will officially become the world's longest route (although it still remains the #1 route for the world's longest flight in economy).

Can anyone else confirm this officially? I'm really hoping so, I just flew SYD-DFW in August.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: jfklganyc
Posted 2012-10-24 12:56:17 and read 21730 times.

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 13):
ppl outside the US automatically think "go to JFK". That is of course changing

Actually, it's not.

While the 90s was very much about secondary hubs as gateways, the 2000s to today has seen a return to hubs with large O and D: JFK, MIA, LAX, SFO, EWR to support the flights themselves.

In the case of EWR vs JFK, EWR had a glory period from the early to late 90s when CO was establishing a huge hub and international airlines were flocking there. JFK at this time was a mess with old terminals, no rail transport, clogged roadways, and 3 bankrupt airlines as anchor tenants: PA, TW, and EA.

From the opening of T1 (mid 90s) til today, JFK has seen a reemergence not only as the leading gateway to the US, but also as the busiest airport in the region by far.

That, combined with a very dominant hub in EWR by CO now UA, has forced everyone other than CO and UA to retrench there and retool elsewhere. Read the threads: many foreign carriers that served both EWR and JFK through a dual airport strategy are returning to soley serving JFK.

Airlines like AA and the old UA (both of which ran international out of EWR) scaled back at EWR.

EWR is safe as a gateway courtesy of the huge UA hub and lots of O and D...but don't look for a lot of tails besides UA in the near future

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-10-24 13:36:57 and read 21029 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 38):
Airlines like AA and the old UA (both of which ran international out of EWR) scaled back at EWR.



That's more indicative of their own poor performance and not the airport's, case in point would be UA while dropping international flying from EWR in the early '00s also simultaneously dropped JFK International flying. DL on the other hand is growing their EWR International flying, next year DL will be flying EWR-AMS and EWR-CDG.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-10-24 13:55:48 and read 20726 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Anyhow for fun here is their 2011 load factors on the routes:

EWR
Jan - 77
Feb - 63
Mar - 80
Apr - 61
May - 83
Jun - 78
Jul - 72
Aug - 59
Sep - 76
Oct - 72
Nov - 60
Dec - 60
Average = 70.1%

LAX
Jan - 76
Feb - 74
Mar - 70
Apr - 73
May - 86
Jun - 82
Jul - 77
Aug - 69
Sep - 80
Oct - 81
Nov - 77
Dec - 69
Average = 76.2%

With load factors like these, it's stupid not to release some award seats to Star partners. It's much much lower rev per head than actual paid J, but sure beats flying an empty seat for 19 hours. Heck, I'm totally willing to redeem this flight for 120K miles plus $1000 of fuel surcharge.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: FlyPNS1
Posted 2012-10-24 14:46:49 and read 19881 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 39):
DL on the other hand is growing their EWR International flying, next year DL will be flying EWR-AMS and EWR-CDG.

But that's not really growth, it's just DL replacing AF/KLM flights because DL flights are effectively AF/KLM flights given the joint venture.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-10-24 14:52:36 and read 19822 times.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
But that's not really growth, it's just DL replacing AF/KLM flights because DL flights are effectively AF/KLM flights given the joint venture



It's a new airline on a route. Also AF leaving EWR, and ORD, is indicative of AF's ills and not the airport's otherwise DL would not be picking up the route. Which is my point.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: slcdeltarumd11
Posted 2012-10-24 15:01:45 and read 19603 times.

Its the economy and more businesses letting fewer and fewer people fly premium classes

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: caljn
Posted 2012-10-24 18:53:47 and read 17070 times.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 38):
From the opening of T1 (mid 90s) til today, JFK has seen a reemergence not only as the leading gateway to the US, but also as the busiest airport in the region by far.

You failed to mention Jet Blue and their contribution to JFK's increase in traffic.

If it is the leading gateway it is a pity that international travelers first impression of the US is JFK. Anyone who uses the terms JFK and "prestige" in a sentence hasn't flown thru that third world facility of late, even after the "upgrades".

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-10-24 19:24:58 and read 16665 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Anyhow for fun here is their 2011 load factors on the routes:

The load factors weren't that bad; if those are actually paid seats with no or few rewards, then they're fantastic LF for an all premium layout. EWR probably was halfway decent, especially if you take out ownership. LAX had to be dreadful; I can't imagine there are enough premium passengers willing to pay not only for J to SIN, but on top of that a hefty premium to go nonstop, and flow passengers are just not worth taking on such a ULH flight.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Ben175
Posted 2012-10-24 19:50:16 and read 16347 times.

This is such saddening news to me as these flights are always my #1 choice when flying PER-NYC or PER-LAX. I have flown these ULH routes three times and all three are in my top 5 flights of all time. The experience of being up in the air for 18 and a half hours is just incredible. I am really, really disappointed to see these routes go.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-24 21:30:23 and read 15397 times.

I smell a revival of the old "EWR vs JFK" topic once again!

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 38):
EWR is safe as a gateway courtesy of the huge UA hub and lots of O and D...but don't look for a lot of tails besides UA in the near future

Correct.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 39):
That's more indicative of their own poor performance and not the airport's,

This makes no sense. An airport in the context of these comments IS the airlines that fly there.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 39):
DL on the other hand is growing their EWR International flying, next year DL will be flying EWR-AMS and EWR-CDG.

Yeah, they're going to increase their EWR international flying by 100% - DL sure is massively expanding international flying out of EWR.   

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 41):
But that's not really growth, it's just DL replacing AF/KLM flights because DL flights are effectively AF/KLM flights given the joint venture.

Correct.

Quoting caljn (Reply 44):
Anyone who uses the terms JFK and "prestige" in a sentence hasn't flown thru that third world facility of late, even after the "upgrades"

Oh come on. DL's facilities are horrible, but the other terminals are quite nice.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: 777law
Posted 2012-10-24 23:11:11 and read 14622 times.

Quoting ordjoe (Reply 15):
and SQ does not really discount those J seats or give them out as awards

That's not entirely true. Having lived in Singapore for 5 years (left in January) the SIN-EWR / SIN-LAX flights were the expat favorites - generally carrying very healthy loads of expat familes (parents and kids) back to the US. My wife, daughter and I flew the SIN-EWR route a couple times and since the tickets were SG$10,000 r/t (about US$8,000) - we always used award tickets for the flight. When we combined my miles from business travel and our Singapore credit card points we generally had enough for two round trip award tickets a year. Unless we were travelling at Christmas or New Years the award tickets were pretty easy to book.

Anyway, the cancellation of these flights are going to be a big disappointment for a lot of US expats in Singapore. These flights were by far the easiest and the best way to get to the US and back from Sing. Transiting through HKG, NRT, ICN, (on the Asia side) and LAX, ORD, SFO, etc. (on the US side) is a huge pain and adds hours to journey. It is a shame to see these go.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: AirbusA6
Posted 2012-10-25 01:51:41 and read 13553 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
Quoting AirbusA6 (Reply 17):
A shame, hopefully the A345s will find a new home, probably as a gorgeous private jet!

Airbus agreed to take them in as trade on the A350+A380 deal. I expect they'll be broken up and sold as OEM spares as the planes are worth far more in pieces than complete.

Yes, sadly it is the parts commonality with the super popular A330 which will condemn these planes to an early death 

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-10-25 02:20:04 and read 13400 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 40):
I'm totally willing to redeem this flight for 120K miles plus $1000 of fuel surcharge.

Doubt you will get any award seat on any of these EWR-SIN-EWR flights. There are none available now. I doubt they will release any in the future.

Sort of like Concorde. The day they announced the end of service there was no more award seats to be found and that was for any existing Concorde flights on both BA and AF. I had to pay full fare for my last AF Concorde flight 3 weeks before the end of service while I had used various tricks in the past to get me on board.

The best chance for you to be on these SQ345 nonstop flights is by booking your seat and paying the price.

        

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: changyou
Posted 2012-10-25 02:32:26 and read 13272 times.

Just hope these flights will return someday with more fuel efficient planes...

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: babybus
Posted 2012-10-25 02:38:24 and read 13236 times.

If a route isn't carrying enough traffic it has to be dumped, that's just pure economics. I'm surprised a direct route to America couldn't support enough traffic though and that there isn't a Boeing or Airbus aircraft that could do it effectively.

New York is usually a popular route for most airlines and direct is best for business guys.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: 777law
Posted 2012-10-25 03:11:08 and read 13069 times.

Just to give you all a flavor of some facebook comments from my American friends in Singapore on this news:

" Noooooo!!!!!! That is the best way home!!"

" Not happy about this! I'm sure this will mean that the flight via Frankfurt is going to get harder to get on and more expensive!" and

"Ridiculous. If anything improved technology should make the flight more attractive."


I wonder if putting the A380 on the SIN-FRA-JFK route has anything to do with the demise of the SIN-EWR non-stop? Does anyone know how SQ is doing on SIN-FRA-JFK nowadays?

[Edited 2012-10-25 04:06:42]

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: ltbewr
Posted 2012-10-25 03:41:09 and read 12777 times.

The higher costs of a relatively small sub-fleet of model and cabin set up to service the EWR and LAX - SIN flights, that SQ has smart bean counters that figure as to fuel burn and wear and tear on the aircraft that is is time to move them from their fleet for more flexible use aircraft, sadly means the end of this historic standard flight to EWR and LAX. JFK has also gained a lot of connecting from JetBlue, so have gotten closer to the benefit from service at EWR for SQ and other international airlines to move so only at JFK.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: STT757
Posted 2012-10-25 03:55:30 and read 12738 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 34):
I suspect they'll drop EWR and just stick with the "international gateway/prestige" NYC area airport, JFK

The reason why SQ was operating the nonstop flight out of EWR and not JFK was because JFK was unable to support an all business class flight to Asia , EWR was for 9 years. If the SQ nonstop was moving to JFK you would have an argument, it's not, as with LAX it's going away as the economics of a four engine A340 over 9,500 miles and in the air burining fuel for nearly 20 hours is no longer viable in the high fuel economy. Also the argument that JFK is NY's presitige airport defies logic, the airport's largest airline, B6, doesn't even offer a first class cabin.

[Edited 2012-10-25 04:11:43]

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: RayChuang
Posted 2012-10-25 05:04:56 and read 12166 times.

I think what SQ might do is get more passengers to fly the SIN-TPE-LAX, SIN-HKG-SFO and SIN-FRA-JFK routes more. With the phaseout of the A340-500, all these routes will use the A380-800, so SQ can still have a fairly decent number F and J seats to attract premium passengers.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: RWA380
Posted 2012-10-25 05:21:11 and read 11969 times.

I am very sad to see these pioneering routes go. I see these much like the pioneering routes in the 1970's that the 747sp was able to provide. My soft spot in aviation is for these birds, the 747sp is the most amazing plane IMHO, and I felt the same way about the A-340-500 aircraft, despite my B preference, I find the same kind of story, and fate plagued both aircraft. Small numbers ordered, long distance records set, fuel pigs (but who in the 70's cared)? This graceful bird has flown with some beautiful and flattering liveries like TG, SQ & EK. I hope they find a VIP opportunity in a wealthy Arab State. Being able to go non-stop do just about any place on the globe in a VIP configuration would be very desirable.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: JerseyFlyer
Posted 2012-10-25 05:24:08 and read 11935 times.

Given 70% load factors, I am surprised that SQ did not order 5 x A358s to replace the 345s directly, and accept break even at best until they were delivered in order to protect their market and maintain the "prestige" element of being the sole ULH carrier.

It seems they have given up on the ULH concept for good, as it will be much more difficult for them to re-instate these routes after a gap in service of a few years.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: caljn
Posted 2012-10-25 05:41:50 and read 11789 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 45):
smell a revival of the old "EWR vs JFK" topic once again!

Yes. Typically initiated by a certain commentor(s) who bristle at the mere mention of EWR, and who then go on to defend JFK's "prestige".

It's quite amusing actually.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-25 07:35:26 and read 11090 times.

I can confirm one case; mine. Of the 7 or 8 RT flights I have taken to SIN, the non-stop was so expensive that compared to UA, with an upgrade to F made SQ's cost unjustifiable. Is Singapore really fabulous? YES, absolutely. Was UA F with a stop "good enough"? Yes, absolutely. If on a UA 747 in F, in the cone was awesome for a flying nut like me, in row 1 or 2 one can look out both sides, it is the closest I will ever get to the view out of the flight deck- with Ch 9 on too, it is thrilling.

I am still sad to hear this news. Can United do an EWR non-stop to SIN? Would a UA 747 do it?

If they can't with their current fleet, a stop in a Global First Club like the one in HK is very nice. It breaks the long trip up, the UA F lounge offers showers and real food, and now that they put the 747 back on the HK to SIN it is great, one can't complain. (however, the move to a 737 was the most stupid thing they ever did)

Anyway, it is sad to loose the world's longest flight out of NYC.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: qf002
Posted 2012-10-25 09:10:14 and read 10824 times.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 58):
Would a UA 747 do it?

Only if they fit some midair refueling capabilities... They'd need about 30% more range than their 744s offer.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: sshank
Posted 2012-10-25 09:57:51 and read 10705 times.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 59):
Only if they fit some midair refueling capabilities... They'd need about 30% more range than their 744s offer.

Now you are talking. That will also make for some exciting Channel 9 action as the tanker is maneuvered into position!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: qf002
Posted 2012-10-25 10:56:53 and read 10543 times.

Quoting sshank (Reply 60):
Now you are talking. That will also make for some exciting Channel 9 action as the tanker is maneuvered into position!

If only the aviation industry was run by the community on this site... Everything would be so much more interesting!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-25 12:51:36 and read 10386 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 53):
The reason why SQ was operating the nonstop flight out of EWR and not JFK was because JFK was unable to support an all business class flight to Asia ,

JFK could support an all biz class flight to Asia as well as or better than EWR.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 53):
Also the argument that JFK is NY's presitige airport defies logic, the airport's largest airline, B6, doesn't even offer a first class cabin.

And despite that, JFK is still NYC's prestige airport.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: krje1980
Posted 2012-10-25 13:15:59 and read 10292 times.

Does anyone with more familiarity with the airline business with than me know whether or not these winter changes may remain permanent? I am scheduled to fly FRA - SIN in July 2013, and one of the main reasons I booked this flight is so that I may experience the A380. I will be kinda bummed out if I have to take a B777, since I will be travelling with just my son, and we looked forward to sharing a two-seater on the upper deck together. So is there any chance that SQ will reinstate the A380 on this route after March?

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: astuteman
Posted 2012-10-25 13:39:43 and read 10234 times.

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 32):
Well, this will create some bragging rights for any DFW or SYD-based fans. Now, QF 7 will officially become the world's longest route (although it still remains the #1 route for the world's longest flight in economy).

Does that mean the worlds longest scheduled flight might become one flown by ...... a 747?      

Rgds

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: VC10er
Posted 2012-10-25 13:51:53 and read 10213 times.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 59):

Not to over do the 747 thing, but didn't UA have 2 JFK to HK 747's about 10+ years ago? Just curious if they have left the fleet.
I recall them, brand new, blinding shiny birds and Kenneth Cole goodies all around for premium classes!

That was also the era of caviar in ice sculptures on United. Now it's potato chips and mini Twix bars!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: nycdave
Posted 2012-10-25 14:28:49 and read 10104 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 62):
JFK could support an all biz class flight to Asia as well as or better than EWR.

Though I'm loathe to go back into this whole thing again, just look at the PANYNJ's *own reports*. EWR has a higher percentage of business pax as traffic than JFK (and LGA has a higher share than either). People who live and/or work in the NYC area seem to have no problem finding their way to any of the 3 airports, or choosing the one that offers the best combination of convenience, routes, and price for them. For a not-insignificant number of business pax originating in manhattan, that's EWR. For almost all of those originating in North Jersey, it's EWR, just as for almost all those originating on Long Island, it's JFK. But trust me, if you suddenly had international routes to LHR, FRA, LAX, and the like from LGA, both JFK and EWR would lose out big time... and no one is under any pretense than LGA is anything other than an utter pit, so BAH! to claims of "prestige"!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-10-25 14:52:30 and read 10025 times.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 66):
But trust me, if you suddenly had international routes to LHR, FRA, LAX, and the like from LGA, both JFK and EWR would lose out big time... and no one is under any pretense than LGA is anything other than an utter pit, so BAH! to claims of "prestige"!

But compared to that miserable JFK T-3 (with operations split across T2/3/4), if you fly DL, LGA is relatively a much better experience already

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: CV880
Posted 2012-10-25 17:21:44 and read 9805 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 67):
But compared to that miserable JFK T-3 (with operations split across T2/3/4), if you fly DL

What's to say that DL couldn't try the same routes with the 77L's, using the current seating configs, then adjust the seat density according to demand. Reduce the seat density in Y+/Y and jack up the fares. I don't think that DL would use anything but T-4 @ JFK for any such flight.

Let the flames begin!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-25 18:14:23 and read 9663 times.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 66):

Though I'm loathe to go back into this whole thing again,(

I know, I know, but a certain contributor makes such outlandish pro-EWR statements....

Quoting nycdave (Reply 66):

just look at the PANYNJ's *own reports*. EWR has a higher percentage of business pax as traffic than JFK (

And as we discussed back then.... if airport "E" has 10 passengers and 8 of them are business passengers, while airport "J" has 100 passengers and just 20 are business passengers, of course airport "E" wins the "well who has the higher percentage of business passengers" contest.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: daviation
Posted 2012-10-25 20:00:26 and read 9464 times.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 66):
so BAH! to claims of "prestige"!

Agree completely! Having lived in NYC and the surrounding area for over 50 years, I never once thought of NYC as having a "prestige" airport. The whole thing sounds ridiculous. People in New Jersey and other areas on the west side of the Hudson use EWR whenever possible. People from Brooklyn, Queens, and Long Island use LGA and JFK. Westchester and lower Connecticut use HPN if possible. It's a toss up regarding Manhattan.

The main thing is that passengers choose their airport based on convenience, price, schedule. I don't think prestige has anything to do with it. Honestly, can you say "prestige" and "NYC airports" in the same sentence?

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-25 20:40:18 and read 9338 times.

Quoting daviation (Reply 70):
It's a toss up regarding Manhattan.

It's not. Manhattan overwhelmingly goes LGA/JFK.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Aircellist
Posted 2012-10-25 20:51:43 and read 9304 times.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 61):
If only the aviation industry was run by the community on this site... Everything would be so much more interesting!

So true! We'd still have the choice between Concorde and a Super Constellation to cross the Atlantic!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LAXDESI
Posted 2012-10-25 22:27:47 and read 9133 times.

On the marketplace radio program(NPR) today, there was a brief discussion about discontinuation of SIN-LAX/EWR flights. Richard Aboulafia indicated that these ULH flights could become economical in the future with newer generation of aircraft that burn less fuel. I can't think of any future offering that can do the 8,300 nm range of SIN-EWR.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: NWADTWE16
Posted 2012-10-25 22:58:23 and read 9063 times.

EWR attracts the North Jersey crowd from my daily dealings...and JFK has become very popular the past couple years with B6 operations and the Transcons w VX|DL|AA|B6.. LGA will always serve a major purpose but as the ATC delays have risen this too has lead to more bleed to JFK. Ironically EWR is the consistent ATC winner the past three months. Average Daily holds are between 35Mins and 1HR almost every day, and that includes clear ones. I do believe there may be runway construction though to their defense.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2012-10-26 01:31:20 and read 8857 times.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 20):
Newark is not equipped to handle the A380.

WHAT? The EWR fanboys NEVER mentioned that! To be so lacking in facilities that allow service by the world's largest airliner is unforgivable and hardly 'world-class'. How many airlines bring A380's into 'third world' JFK? I've lost count.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 34):
NYC area airport, JFK.

You can drop the 'area' part...JFK is a NYC airport, as it is completely within the borders of NYC.

Quoting VC10er (Reply 58):
Anyway, it is sad to loose the world's longest flight out of NYC

Conversely, EWR is most certainly NOT within the borders of NYC. In THIS case, use of the word 'area' is appropriate.

Quoting nycdave (Reply 66):
no one is under any pretense than LGA is anything other than an utter pit

Eh-cue me?

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 67):
if you fly DL, LGA is relatively a much better experience already

Gracias. Once that facacta C/D connecting bridge is up and running and the TSA checkpoints expand, things will get even better!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: bwvilla
Posted 2012-10-26 04:33:40 and read 8582 times.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 53):
The reason why SQ was operating the nonstop flight out of EWR and not JFK was because JFK was unable to support an all business class flight to Asia , EWR was for 9 years.

I don't think that's correct. The aircraft on this route had a mix of business class and economy plus until they were reconfigured to all business class in (I think) 2009.

So whether or not JFK or EWR could support all-business class flights presumably wasn't a consideration when this non-stop route started up in 2004.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-10-26 06:42:27 and read 8504 times.

let's get 4 things straight among everyone going off tangents :

1. International carriers *do* prefer JFK over EWR, even Star Alliance ones (e.g. ANA, Turkish....). Few international carriers are EWR-exclusive.

2. Manhattan pax "preferring" LGA+JFK is partially a function of DL+AA+B6 hubbing there versus a lonely UA at EWR. The only LCC of NYC hubbing at JFK further skews volume.

However, due to EWR being an omnidirectional hub and economies of scale, UA could offer quite a few exclusive NYC-XYZ nonstops not available on DL/AA.

3. On top of lack of double-deck boarding gates, EWR's tight taxiways also pose a problem for the A380

4. SQ's SIN-EWR demise has *nothing* to do with it being at EWR instead of JFK.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: MaverickM11
Posted 2012-10-26 06:55:10 and read 8454 times.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 62):

And despite that, JFK is still NYC's prestige airport.

Having started flying through the airport on PA 741s, JFK and prestige in the same sentence is a little ridiculous. It is definitely the largest in terms of many stats, but prestigious? Oy. Necessary evil perhaps 
Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 77):
let's get 4 things straight among everyone going off tangents :

   Pretty reasonable summary. If you get fired up over EWR vs JFK, you need a new hobby.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: caljn
Posted 2012-10-26 06:55:43 and read 8475 times.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 77):
let's get 4 things straight among everyone going off tangents :

To continue the childishness, let's get a few other things straight.

JFK is a dump. A cluster F of buildings, parking lots, confusion and surly people thrown together.
LGA can't even handle transcons.
EWR has the best terminal in Term C.

(and we have the Giants and Jets as well. So there.)


These JFK fanboys sound like Atlantan's boasting of the busyness of their airport. Is being the busiest some kind of badge of honor? Most sane travelers avoid Atlanta at any cost!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: mogandoCI
Posted 2012-10-26 07:33:40 and read 8357 times.

Quoting caljn (Reply 79):
EWR has the best terminal in Term C.

I would actually give "best NYC terminal" crown to AA Terminal 8 at JFK.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-26 13:36:14 and read 8047 times.

Quoting caljn (Reply 79):
EWR has the best terminal in Term C.

See below.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 80):
I would actually give "best NYC terminal" crown to AA Terminal 8 at JFK.

Yes!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: pellegrine
Posted 2012-10-28 22:04:33 and read 7248 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 22):
Anyhow for fun here is their 2011 load factors on the routes:

EWR
Jan - 77
Feb - 63
Mar - 80
Apr - 61
May - 83
Jun - 78
Jul - 72
Aug - 59
Sep - 76
Oct - 72
Nov - 60
Dec - 60
Average = 70.1%

LAX
Jan - 76
Feb - 74
Mar - 70
Apr - 73
May - 86
Jun - 82
Jul - 77
Aug - 69
Sep - 80
Oct - 81
Nov - 77
Dec - 69
Average = 76.2%

You call that struggling on an all business class layout? What are you smoking?

Unfortunately, as usual, this issue is more complicated than many posters on A.net have knowledge to talk about.

Hint.

The aircraft are depreciated in so far as much that SQ can rid themselves of them at minimal cost.

Additionally...SQ doesn't care to operate this route with any aircraft. It isn't that it is not profitable...it is not profitable enough..

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 33):

I suspect SQ has hung on to these flights for prestige purposes for quite some time....

I don't think so. Run the numbers using the LFs and you will see.

It isn't about 772LR versus A345 fuel burn either.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: docpepz
Posted 2012-10-28 22:24:33 and read 7214 times.

The interesting thing is, these flights operate close to full from Fridays to Mondays and maybe at 50-60% on Tue to Thu getting to an overall load factor of 70ish%


But if SQ didn't offer the flights mid week (for EWR anyway) they wouldn't be able to get the pax who want the weekend flights.

It would be interesting to see where the 90 pax on Fri to Sun to and from EWR will defect to, after these flights end. 90 J pax a day is not insignificant, and SQ can't beat CX on schedule (4 flights a day from NYC).

Also we don't know if most of the pax were SIN based or US based. If they're SIN based pax they'd probably stick with SQ due to FFP reasons. If many were US based pax taking this flight just because it was a non stop to SIN, they might probably be lost to other carriers. But SQ better make sure by doing this they're not gifting an average of 140 J pax a day to EWR and JFK to the competition.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: N62NA
Posted 2012-10-28 22:46:35 and read 7133 times.

Quoting docpepz (Reply 83):


It would be interesting to see where the 90 pax on Fri to Sun to and from EWR will defect to, after these flights end. 90 J pax a day is not insignificant, and SQ can't beat CX on schedule (4 flights a day from NYC).

Very interesting point!

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LH422
Posted 2012-10-29 02:04:06 and read 6976 times.

Quoting 777law (Reply 51):
Does anyone know how SQ is doing on SIN-FRA-JFK nowadays?

Well, it's downgraded to 77W this Winter. Maybe this change will make the route go A380 year-round. I also think they'll be using the lower-density A380 (without Y on the upper deck) on this route in the future. That one's upper deck pretty much resembles an all-business A345.

http://www.singaporeair.com/pdf/seat...rbus380-all-business-upperdeck.pdf

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-10-30 16:39:53 and read 6377 times.

SQ confirms that even with 80% LF the routes were loss making. Carrier states it remains committed to both LA and NY with 1-stop service, while it continues to explore options to enhance its US services.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-1...est-non-stop-flight-next-year.html

=

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: coolfish1103
Posted 2012-10-30 20:21:10 and read 6161 times.

There isn't much SQ can do in exploring options to the US unless they utilize their 5th freedom rights in NRT, HKG, TPE, or ICN. In that case, no non-stop flights will be in plan until maybe A359 comes in. Even then, trying to get a route working with A359 might be worry some unless it's LAX.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: changyou
Posted 2012-10-30 21:04:08 and read 6077 times.

Can the 77W do SIN-LAXvv all year round on an all jcl configuration as compared to 3 class config?
Bloomberg mentioned the 77W can fly up to 7930nm while SIN-LAX is 7609nm. I remembered SQ used the 77E on SIN-LAX occasionally when the 345 was out of service. but the LAX-SIN was via TPE.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: SInGAPORE_AIR
Posted 2012-10-31 01:24:43 and read 5885 times.

Quoting changyou (Reply 88):
Can the 77W do SIN-LAXvv all year round on an all jcl configuration as compared to 3 class config?

Hello Changyou  !

In previous discussions it was mentioned that SINLAX was around 7600 - 7700nm depending on routing but because of headwinds on the return LAXSIN that could add the equivalent of around 700nm to the range needed that would take you up to 8300 - 8400nm.

Looking at this Boeing presentation though it would seem that the B77W can do this comfortably: http://www.boeing.com/commercial/startup/pdf/777_payload.pdf

SQ38 / SQ37 has always been weaker than SQ22 / SQ21 though as evidenced by the 5x weekly frequency. Still I'd imagine it'll still take 3 B77Ws to perform nonstop SINLAX services and I'm skeptical about whether the Airline wants to use its valuable capital like on a route like that anymore. In addition, the 18th November 2011 news release states that the additional 8 B77Ws ordered will arrive in a 3-class configuration.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: changyou
Posted 2012-10-31 03:27:12 and read 5760 times.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LH422
Posted 2012-10-31 03:39:53 and read 5756 times.

Quoting changyou (Reply 88):
Can the 77W do SIN-LAXvv all year round on an all jcl configuration as compared to 3 class config?

I seem to recall SQ has done this flight nonstop with a 77W before, but not scheduled. Can anyone confirm?

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: jfk777
Posted 2012-10-31 04:31:46 and read 5691 times.

Quoting LH422 (Reply 91):
I seem to recall SQ has done this flight nonstop with a 77W before, but not scheduled. Can anyone confirm?

A 77W could probably do the nonstops to the USA but if an airline that can sell all its Business Class seats can't make it work then its about economics. The A340-500 was only 100 J class seats. In 10 years a second generation 787 or A350 will be able to fly nonstop to New York.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-10-31 07:30:45 and read 5573 times.

Unless a random substitution, the LAX nonstop was never on the 77W.

What LAX did get using the 77W was the daily service via TPE.

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: changyou
Posted 2012-10-31 17:58:59 and read 5381 times.

So the 77W does have the range if push to its limit. Even so when configured with roughly 100-110 jcl seats. Having said that...The new 77W which are coming next year will be install with new 3 class cabin and IFE. It'll be interesting to see what the designs are.
P/S: Hope to see you on board again Singapore_Air

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: Megatop747-412
Posted 2012-11-01 00:37:45 and read 5196 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 93):
What LAX did get using the 77W was the daily service via TPE.

I thought that was using the 77E (SV series birds)? IIRC the SIN -LAX-TPE flights were discontinued before the arrival of SQ's 77W...

Topic: RE: SQ To End LAX/EWR-SIN Nonstop Flights
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-11-01 09:38:42 and read 4953 times.

Airbus business jet division looking to resell the SQ A345s as VIP jets.

Airbus Corporate Jets will soon have some additional A340-500s to put into the VIP market. Singapore Airlines has ordered a tranche of new A350s and A380s from Airbus, but part of that deal sees the return of Singapore’s five A340-500s to the manufacturer. François Chazelle, Airbus Corporate Jets vice president for worldwide sales, says, “those are pretty interesting aircraft for us and we are looking at them quite closely. If and when they come back to Airbus – and it’s more a matter of when – there is plenty of life left in those airframes and the four-engined configuration is still highly-prized in the VIP market.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....e-xml/awx_10_31_2012_p0-512379.xml

Quoting Megatop747-412 (Reply 95):
I thought that was using the 77E (SV series birds)? IIRC the SIN -LAX-TPE flights were discontinued before the arrival of SQ's 77W...

Well SIN-LAX-TPE was dropped in Octovber 2008, so the 77W fleet was definitely on property at the time having arrived first in 2006.

Looking in the photo database here however I see photos of both the -200ER and -300ERs, taken back in 2007 so it looks like while it indeed ran on the 772 after the switch from 744 (RIP SQ006 in TPE), the 77W seems to have been used also at some point and why I remember seeing back then.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Michael Arcellana


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/