Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
2006 - A Big Year For SQ  
User currently offlineCtang From Australia, joined Jul 2001, 139 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2894 times:

I think 2006 will be a big year for SQ as it will get two types of new aircraft - A380 and B777-300ER. Opinions please?

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineNWAFA From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1893 posts, RR: 16
Reply 1, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2876 times:

Its sure nice when your government subsidized isn't it!




THANK YOU FOR FLYING NORTHWEST AIRLINES, WE TRULY APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS!
User currently offlineDocpepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1968 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2835 times:

NWAFA could you please elaborate and substantiate your statements please? Thanks.

User currently offlineAussie747 From Australia, joined Aug 2003, 1162 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2815 times:

they will probably get rights for SYD-LAX as well

User currently offlinePhilsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2785 times:

NWAFA,

I have to ask you to produce any evidence you have that SQ is subsidized. I suppose NWA isn't subsidized by the state of Minnesota? Who built the MX base in DLH? Who is putting up the money for the new terminal in MSP? Should I go on?

SQ is not subsidized by the government. Yes, the government, via Tamasek holdings does own a substantial part of SQ, but then again that's like the flight attendants owing part of NWA.

So, unless you have proof of your allegations, I suggest you keep your comments to an area you have some expertise in.


User currently offlineKrisworldB777 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 570 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2776 times:

NWAFA just a note to advise you against joining the misguided masses who perpetually claim that Singapore Airlines has and continues to be government subsidised.

Though SIA is indeed 56.75% owned by the Singapore Government’s Investment Arm Temasek, if you look carefully and ignore the gratuitous banter, I can assure you that if anything, it is SIA that subsidises Temasek and hence the Singapore Government by means of impressive dividends derived from SIA’s not insignificant profits. SIA’s 2003-2004 profit before tax for example was SGD$820.9-million with a dividend of approximately 25c per share.

For those unfamiliar with Temasek Holdings, it was formed in 1974 and their current portfolio, worth an estimated SGD$90-billion, includes a diverse range of investments with many familiar companies such as SIA, Singtel, DBS Bank, Singapore Power and Bank International Indonesia coming under their influence. It is also worth noting that Temasek holds a stake in Qantas, albeit small, and was a key backer of Australian low-cost operator Impulse which was absorbed into Qantas some years ago.

Despite so many claiming that SIA’s profits and quality of its products and services are thanks to the government concessions, this is incorrect. Even a passing glance at SIA’s annual expenditure reported in their annual report will tell you that they pay market prices for fuel, human resources, landing and handling fees and sales costs. The only subject that is worthy of discussion is SIA’s ability to depreciate aircraft at a faster rate than many other airlines. However, this is thanks to Singapore’s depreciation policy and is not quite as significant as Geoff Dixon would like you to believe.


User currently offlineAerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 6902 posts, RR: 13
Reply 6, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2735 times:

But back to the topic at hand, yes it will be a big year for SQ. I expect several new routes/route restarts once the extra capacity comes online.
I'm very much looking forward to flying both types next year.


User currently offlineSingaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2741 times:

rumour has it that we're going to have a new or an 'updated' livery with the introduction of the a380s, as well as a new premium cabin design (by next year the skysuite would be 8 years old... time does fly, doesn't it?).


Ladies & Gentlemen, we will now demonstrate the use of the safety equipment on this aircraft...
User currently offlineAviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1483 posts, RR: 15
Reply 8, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 2717 times:

The Singapore government via its investment arm - Temasek Holdings - is a shareholder that expects as much (perhaps more) from the airline than any other shareholder. And it dishes out no charity - on the contrary, it also invests in Jetstar Asia which certainly hopes to carve away at SIA's traffic on the SIN-TPE, SIN-MNL, SIN-HKG and SIN-SHA routes.

A small nation as vulnerable as Singapore cannot afford to subsidise a flag carrier if it could not independently operate profitably as a commercial entity. Even when aircraft are chartered to bring military men and equipment to foreign training grounds, price is the underlining criteria - and Qantas and Thai have both benefitted from such contracts.

KC Sim
Bangkok



User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2087 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2536 times:

SQ is profitable because it fills its premier seats. Its product is far superior to ours in USA, hence its performance. They invest in their product to keep it that way. NWAFA - Try the SQ product, you may learn something, and yes I do fly NW also now only domestically. I found your Asian service to be very substandard.

Back on SQ tomorrow PVG-SIN and then Saturday back home SIN-EWR, guess it will be the same high standard.


User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1992 posts, RR: 15
Reply 10, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2418 times:

"Its" sure nice when "your" misinformed too.

Singapore Airlines has worked hard for decades to build itself into a premier international carrier. The government of Singapore has contributed to its success, sure, but the company has made a string of sound business decisions that put it where it is today. Nothing more, nothing less.

Yet more thinly-veiled jealousy from one of my fellow Americans, who can't stand the idea that other carriers are growing, prospering and ordering new aircraft while our airlines are in the gutter.

I look forward to watching SQ grow in 2006... I'd love to see them return to Chicago. Perhaps they can spare a few A345s for a SIN-ORD run. It's nice to dream.  Smile



User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 2360 times:

Also, if they finally make the call to order the 772C this year; they could very well end up with not only the world's largest commercial aircraft, but the world's longest ranged as well in 2006.  Big thumbs up

User currently offlineCyclonic From Australia, joined Jan 2005, 231 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 2326 times:

Ouch.... someone just got their arse handed to them!


Keith Richards: The man that Death forgot...
User currently offlineN1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26196 posts, RR: 76
Reply 13, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 2321 times:

>Yes, the government, via Tamasek holdings does own a substantial part of SQ, but then again that's like the flight attendants owing part of NWA.<

Well, no, its not

SQ is a company that has done some very shrewed dealings and you cannot take that away from them. They are profitable because they run their airline well. Then again, they have been it for an airline in Singapore (understandably) for a very long time and do have government support behind them. So did LH and BA, while AF was state owned until the KLM deal.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 7874 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (9 years 3 months 2 days ago) and read 2269 times:

Yeah but there's a huge difference between having the government behind you and being subsidized by the government. It's no secret that the Singaporean government is extremely business oriented and knows a good opportunity when it sees one. Excelent post KrisworldB777.

User currently offlineLOT767-300ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2190 times:

"I look forward to watching SQ grow in 2006... I'd love to see them return to Chicago. Perhaps they can spare a few A345s for a SIN-ORD run. It's nice to dream. Smile"

Bah, the 772s that lasted the couple months they were here flew empty from AMS and with a few people back.


User currently offlineJsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1992 posts, RR: 15
Reply 16, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2184 times:

LOT -

I had heard the loads on the ORD-AMS run were pretty dismal. I just miss seeing the SQ logo poking over the top of Terminal 5. We have a spectacular array of international carriers as it is, but more are always nice.

I'm hoping that perhaps an aircraft with the range to fly SIN-ORD might help SQ tap into the US domestic connectivity that United can offer from Chicago. It's a long shot (I'm sure United is content ferrying everyone to NRT and on to SIN from there) but stranger things have happened. While we're at it, let's get our ANA and Austrian Airlines flights back - then we'd have almost the whole Star Alliance at ORD!


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (9 years 3 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2152 times:

Minus one Kiwi carrier as well as an impending Springbok  Big grin

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
2006 Tough Year For A320 Vs 737? posted Tue Jan 24 2006 15:49:56 by MrComet
Big Growth Year For NZ posted Sun Oct 15 2006 23:07:06 by 1Des1
2006 The "Break Out" Year For TVC? posted Wed Mar 29 2006 07:56:24 by Maiznblu_757
Big Week For Boeing posted Fri Nov 10 2006 03:19:07 by CO738
Delivery Date For SQ 77W? posted Thu Nov 9 2006 08:06:36 by ZKNBX
Tomorrow: A Big Day For Angolan Aviation posted Wed Nov 8 2006 20:20:53 by JMO-777
New Economy Class For SQ- What's Included? posted Mon Oct 2 2006 12:28:34 by Ctang
Airbus's Gustav Humbert A Big Plus For Airbus? posted Wed May 31 2006 14:03:33 by Halibut
28th April - Big Day For DSA And HUY posted Thu Apr 27 2006 20:36:14 by Humberside
Big Day For The B717 posted Thu Apr 20 2006 14:50:49 by B6FA4ever