Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5774225/

Topic: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: laxboeingman
Posted 2013-05-27 00:26:06 and read 11843 times.

Airliners.net(ers),

That is my question. How come SQ does not offer non-stop LAX-SIN or SIN-LAX? I looked at the specs for the A380 on A.net and then looked up the non-stop distance (in terms of nm) and it seems like it could work, in terms of pure distance, but it would be close. Is the reason they do not do this because the fuel level would be too low for safety and/or ETOPS standards/regulations by the time the e/q got to its destination? Am I correct in thinking there is such a standard or did I take that out of thin air?

Thank you in advance,

laxboeingman

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: FSDan
Posted 2013-05-27 00:27:56 and read 11851 times.

Just FYI, SQ currently flies LAX-SIN nonstop. It's going away in the fall I believe when SQ retires their A340-500s.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: laxboeingman
Posted 2013-05-27 00:32:27 and read 11805 times.

Quoting FSDan (Reply 1):
Just FYI, SQ currently flies LAX-SIN nonstop.

Thank you for the information.

I knew they had the flight at one point, but I thought it was stopped when the A380 entered service. Was it offered with a 777 or was that e/q only for the LAX-NRT-SIN flights? When I look on the SQ website one can only book the A380 with a stop in NRT. Is it only for that specific day?

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: kaitak
Posted 2013-05-27 00:40:20 and read 11754 times.

Depends which dates you were inquiring about. As FSDan says, the equipment is an A340-500, which SQ is retiring in October/November. As far as I am aware, after that date, they just have flights via NRT, on the A380.

Perhaps the reason the A345 flights didn't show was because you selected "Economy Class" when searching for flights? As the A345 is in an all-J Class layout, these flights would not show.

It's sad to see the A345s go, but I guess these were prestige routes and a fleet of five units isn't really economical. Progress, eh? The A345s are the most beautiful aircraft flying today ... and no one's going to say that about the A380!

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: laxboeingman
Posted 2013-05-27 00:51:31 and read 11704 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
Perhaps the reason the A345 flights didn't show was because you selected "Economy Class" when searching for flights? As the A345 is in an all-J Class layout, these flights would not show.

That would be why. Thank you for letting me know. I did not realize that their A345s did not have economy. That makes sense, however, considering what I read in the recent thread about EWR-SIN. They were trying to attract to the flying business person, I would believe.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: afterburner
Posted 2013-05-27 01:15:37 and read 11569 times.

Quoting kaitak (Reply 3):
Perhaps the reason the A345 flights didn't show was because you selected "Economy Class" when searching for flights? As the A345 is in an all-J Class layout, these flights would not show.

A route map in an airlines' website is an easier way to find out about its routes (assuming it is up-to-date).  

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-27 05:42:31 and read 10976 times.

Quoting laxboeingman (Thread starter):
I looked at the specs for the A380 on A.net and then looked up the non-stop distance (in terms of nm) and it seems like it could work

This is a 17hr flight on many days with an ESAD of about 8000nm. It would need one of the upcoming 575t MTOW A380's to do this at max passenger load . I assume SIA has some of these coming sometime in the future.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: carpethead
Posted 2013-05-27 05:45:02 and read 10965 times.

Quoting laxboeingman (Reply 2):
Was it offered with a 777 or was that e/q only for the LAX-NRT-SIN flights?

SQ11 & 12 have always been on 742, 743, 744 or A380 in that order.
The SIN-TPE-LAX was on a 744 or 772ER until it was discontinued a few years ago.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-27 06:16:12 and read 10857 times.

If there were a US operator of 77Ls I could see the LAX-SIN flight being picked up by another carrier. However, it would need to be Star Alliance for SIA and that does not help the only US operator (DL).

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: PHX787
Posted 2013-05-27 07:17:26 and read 10665 times.

I remember being at LAX once and seeing a 777 (specific type forgotten) land at LAX from the In-N-Out spot...this was back in 2008. What was this routing?

Quoting FSDan (Reply 1):
Just FYI, SQ currently flies LAX-SIN nonstop. It's going away in the fall I believe when SQ retires their A340-500s.

From what I heard the 345 is being retired because it is practically the airplane version of a Hummer H-2. Not economical one bit.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: jdflyvc10
Posted 2013-05-27 09:42:30 and read 9731 times.

Hello all my Nutty Airline Friends!

I spoke with with management at SQ her in LA, because they will continue to keep Double Daily flights LAX-SIN once the A345's are retired. He did mention SQ wants to keep the nonstop option, but do they have a 200 series triple with westbound range?

What is needed from LAX is somebody flying nonstop to HKG... With CX owning the market, fresh competition from a Star Alliance partner like SQ would be nice!

Cya!

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: rwy04lga
Posted 2013-05-27 10:11:13 and read 9414 times.

Quoting laxboeingman (Thread starter):
Is the reason they do not do this because the fuel level would be too low for safety and/or ETOPS standards/regulations by the time the e/q got to its destination?

Since the A380 is a 4-holer, and the ETOP regs apply only to twin-engined airliners, the ETOPS requirements do not apply here.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-27 10:52:21 and read 8941 times.

Quoting rwy04lga (Reply 11):
Since the A380 is a 4-holer, and the ETOP regs apply only to twin-engined airliners, the ETOPS requirements do not apply here.

This is not entirely so . 4-holers were grandfathered in for a period but that will run out. However 180-mins is not a problem across the Pacific.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: fun2fly
Posted 2013-05-27 13:14:39 and read 7317 times.

Can a 787 do the LAX>SIN or NYC>SIN routes formerly run by the SQ A345's?

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: Burkhard
Posted 2013-05-27 13:32:24 and read 7098 times.

Quoting fun2fly (Reply 13):
Can a 787 do the LAX>SIN or NYC>SIN routes formerly run by the SQ A345's?


The 788 by far not, and the 789 not with reasonable load. Such long legs have low demand and are expensive to operate, and almost impossible to make money on them. Maybe the A358 can change this, currently only the 77L can do this better than the A345 can, but I still doubt it would leave black numbers.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: sunrisevalley
Posted 2013-05-27 13:44:07 and read 6977 times.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 14):
Maybe the A358 can change this, currently only the 77L can do this better than the A345 can, but I still doubt it would leave black numbers.

On an 8000nm ESAD day it should do 48 to 50t which is probably more than it's volume limited payload. If the freight market is good they would make a car load of money a la AC using the type on YYZ-HKG/ PVG.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: tortugamon
Posted 2013-05-27 13:54:27 and read 6842 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 15):
On an 8000nm ESAD day it should do 48 to 50t which is probably more than it's volume limited payload.

Yes, but I just do not see either SQ or UA buying new 77Ls. I imagine it would take 4 aircraft to make it work. Neither of them have A358s on order either. As I said before, I think this route goes the way of the dodo.

tortugamon

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-27 13:58:06 and read 6800 times.

Even LAX-SIN isn't a huge O&D market, and SIN isn't well-located geographically to serve as a good connecting hub for traffic between North America and the rest of Asia. It's too far south.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: spink
Posted 2013-05-27 14:25:24 and read 6508 times.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 16):
Yes, but I just do not see either SQ or UA buying new 77Ls. I imagine it would take 4 aircraft to make it work. Neither of them have A358s on order either. As I said before, I think this route goes the way of the dodo.

Yep, will probably have to wait and see if either end up ordering 777-8/9s. The 777-8 should be able to easily do the route and should have reasonable economics.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Even LAX-SIN isn't a huge O&D market, and SIN isn't well-located geographically to serve as a good connecting hub for traffic between North America and the rest of Asia. It's too far south.

It makes a reasonable stop point for west coastindia traffic due to its connections.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: TheRedBaron
Posted 2013-05-27 14:31:15 and read 6433 times.

Not to highjack the thread but I guess those A345 will be on the ground for a long time o be sold ULTRA cheap.

TRB

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-27 14:46:05 and read 6294 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 18):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Even LAX-SIN isn't a huge O&D market, and SIN isn't well-located geographically to serve as a good connecting hub for traffic between North America and the rest of Asia. It's too far south.

It makes a reasonable stop point for west coas tindia traffic due to its connections.

It's still too far south for most India traffic. Connections via other points in Asia (or Europe/MiddleEast) are 1,000 to 1,500 nm shorter from the U.S. west coast.

Example:

LAX-SIN-BOM 9738 nm

LAX-ICN-BOM 8208 nm
LAX-NRT-BOM 8406 nm
LAX-HKG-BOM 8619 nm

LAX-DXB-BOM 8287 nm
LAX-AMS-BOM 8555 nm
LAX-FRA-BOM 8596 nm
LAX-LHR-BOM 8640 nm

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: spink
Posted 2013-05-27 14:57:53 and read 6145 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):

It's still too far south for most India traffic. Connections via other points in Asia (or Europe/MiddleEast) are 1,000 to 1,500 nm shorter from the U.S. west coast.

Historically SQ has had much better connections to india than most of the other asian airlines and the differential vs eu on most flights is ~30 minutes or less of flight time.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-05-27 15:04:32 and read 6091 times.

Quoting spink (Reply 21):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 20):

It's still too far south for most India traffic. Connections via other points in Asia (or Europe/MiddleEast) are 1,000 to 1,500 nm shorter from the U.S. west coast.

Historically SQ has had much better connections to india than most of the other asian airlines and the differential vs eu on most flights is ~30 minutes or less of flight time.

But there's a cost involved in flying the passenger up to 1,500 miles further, and in a price-sensitive market like India, most passengers are probably more interested in the fare than the travel time.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: spink
Posted 2013-05-27 16:50:39 and read 5245 times.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):

But there's a cost involved in flying the passenger up to 1,500 miles further, and in a price-sensitive market like India, most passengers are probably more interested in the fare than the travel time.

For the west coast US, there is a large biz market to/from india. And from experience, most people do not want to do a intl-domestic transfer in their indian travel plans, which makes access to as many market as possible important. Last I looked, SQ/LH seem to have the most of the international airlines.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-05-27 20:33:06 and read 3484 times.

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 6):
This is a 17hr flight on many days with an ESAD of about 8000nm. It would need one of the upcoming 575t MTOW A380's to do this at max passenger load .

   But the added costs of a direct flight are only paid for with premium passengers. Passengers cheaping out in Y will not pay enough of a premium for the non-stop to cover the added costs. I suspect the A380 LAX-SIN, why capable, is unlikely to fly the route.

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 8):

If there were a US operator of 77Ls I could see the LAX-SIN flight being picked up by another carrier.

DL has 77Ls, but this will be by *A only.

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 19):
Not to highjack the thread but I guess those A345 will be on the ground for a long time o be sold ULTRA cheap.

They are likely to become A330 parts...  
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
and in a price-sensitive market like India, most passengers are probably more interested in the fare than the travel time.

   But the most economical hub from the US West coast, ICN, is unlikely to gain more rights to India any time soon. They've been trying to gain rights to MAA (for the auto industry) for years with no joy. But I'm seeing no progress in a new India/South Korea bilateral.  


Lightsaber

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2013-05-27 20:50:39 and read 3463 times.

Quoting FSDan (Reply 1):
It's going away in the fall I believe when SQ retires their A340-500s.

Last LAX flight is October 20th.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 9):
I remember being at LAX once and seeing a 777 (specific type forgotten) land at LAX from the In-N-Out spot...this was back in 2008. What was this routing?

Via Taipei

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 17):
Even LAX-SIN isn't a huge O&D market

Not huge like London or Tokyo, but still 285 per day on average.

LAX-SIN is larger local market than many other nonstop LAX markets like Zurich, Guangzhou, Lima, Madrid, Munich, Milan, Dubai, Moscow, Berlin, Istanbul, Santiago, Nadi, etc..

Quoting TheRedBaron (Reply 19):
Not to highjack the thread but I guess those A345 will be on the ground for a long time o be sold ULTRA cheap.

Airbus is taking them back from SQ as part of an order. I'd say they will either be turned into VIP aircraft or scrapped.

Quoting spink (Reply 21):
Historically SQ has had much better connections to india than most of the other asian airlines and the differential vs eu on most flights is ~30 minutes or less of flight time.

   SQ has had a strong India links since shortly after its inception and has used this to get a leg up on much of its Far-East competitors. Combined this with the superior service reputation of SQ, regardless of the extra distance people will seek out SQ connections to India.

Topic: RE: How Come No Non-stop LAX-SIN?
Username: spink
Posted 2013-05-27 22:10:56 and read 2877 times.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 24):
But the most economical hub from the US West coast, ICN, is unlikely to gain more rights to India any time soon. They've been trying to gain rights to MAA (for the auto industry) for years with no joy. But I'm seeing no progress in a new India/South Korea bilateral.

Yep, SQ has more destinations in india than anyone else outside of the large numbers of destinations served by the middle east for the migrant labor market. A large part of this is that SQ was serving india well before most international airlines started looking at serving india. When I first started traveling to BLR for work, there were 3 options: BA, LH, and SQ.

And while a large number of destinations are served via the ME3, there are also issues that prevent travel on the ME3 for many companies.


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/