AT From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 901 posts, RR: 0 Posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 8917 times:
Just curious, why is the new Singapore Airlines nonstop to Newark ? I would have thought JFK would be a more logical choice. Or may be not?
Also, I know they're aiming for the business market, but I still don't understand why they don't have First Class on the Airbus 340-500. Don't you get the most First Class passengers on the longest flights?
SafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 16 Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8712 times:
SQ's non-stop service was aimed especially at business travelers, and SQ said that EWR was the best airport for these travelers (although it has been argued that EWR is only closer for some places in NYC and that JFK is closer for other places) - although other reasons, including ConcordeBoy's reply, were factors.
SafetyDude From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3795 posts, RR: 16 Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8646 times:
So SQ could not make a double daily service into JFK work? CX, and other Asian airlines seem to be successful at doing this.
SQ is unique in that it had JFK-FRA-SIN and would also have JFK-SIN. Other carriers, including Asian carriers, have additional service, or service from other airports (such as BA and VS with service from EWR and JFK to LHR).
CX has JFK-YVR-HGK service, as well as direct JFK-HKG service. I believe that the JFK-YVR-HKG service is very profitable on the individual JFK-YVR and YVR-HKG segments, as well as the route on the whole.
For SQ, the only conceivable and logical way to get to SIN from NYC was doing the JFK-FRA-SIN (or EWR-AMS-SIN), compared to HKG where one could go to another Asian city first, fly to a different US city and then over to HKG, not to mention flying on another carrier (CO, for example). Simply put (as mentioned by ConcordeBoy), doing double JFK service would kill off the FRA routing, so they chose EWR where the AMS service would not be as affected.
Leskova From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 6075 posts, RR: 71 Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 8300 times:
Flyguy1, actually not quite - FRA-JFK had been daily for quite a while, but went down to the 4 flights per week I think one or two years ago (might also have been after 9/11, but I'm not really sure when the cutback happened) - but it's been back to daily for a while again.
And wasn't the AMS flight into EWR anyhow? So it wouldn't have been JFK double-daily in any case...
Ex_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1435 posts, RR: 5 Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 7717 times:
Actually all you guys were right:
JFK service started in 1992 with 3/7 via F-R-A and 3/7 via BRU. BRU-JFK was discontinued a year later and the 3/7 frequencies were routed via AMS. SIN-F RA-JFK went up to 4/7 later, thus giving SIA daily service to JFK.
In 1997, when SQ and LH started co-operating, FRA was upped to daily. That was when the 3/7 frequencies via AMS were routed to EWR. A 4th weekly flight was added later, before it was discontinued.
When the frequencies via F RA went up to daily, SQ initially planned to continue operating the AMS flights to JFK. However, because of flight timings (ie arrivals into both Europe and SIN), both services would have to depart JFK at about the same time. At that juncture, a decision was made to move the AMS flights to EWR.
Kfrg From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6790 times:
...well, Manhattan yes.
Tough to be closer to "the city" than JFK, which is in the city.
When people use the term "The City", they are reffering to the Borough of Manhattan, the financial district of NY. Queens is hardly "The City", it just happens to exist in the borders of the City of New York.