Philsquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3250 times:
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.
KrisworldB777 From Australia, joined Nov 2000, 571 posts, RR: 3
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 3241 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.
Aerorobnz From Rwanda, joined Feb 2001, 7803 posts, RR: 17
Reply 6, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3200 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.
Singaporegirl From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 302 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3206 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...
Aviasian From Singapore, joined Jan 2001, 1490 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 3182 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.
Col From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2202 posts, RR: 22
Reply 9, posted (10 years 8 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 3001 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.
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2243 posts, RR: 14
Reply 10, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2883 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.
N1120a From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 28205 posts, RR: 74
Reply 13, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2786 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
Airbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 9365 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2734 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.
Jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 2243 posts, RR: 14
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2649 times:
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!