FL370 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 252 posts, RR: 0 Posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3931 times:
looking at the past orders Singapore has made and those made by emirates, is Singapore another version of emirates. when both airlines place orders for new planes, they buy a lot!!! and i mean like 50 or more at once.
Abrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 4918 posts, RR: 55 Reply 3, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3744 times:
First, EK and SQ are both Asian carriers. If you want to be specific, I would say EK is a Mid-East version of South-Eastern SQ. Also, please dont compare SQ and EK. As Rob pointed out, EK is a shadow of what it used to be. Even within the Mid-East, I'd rather fly on Qatar, MEA, or Etihad.
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3549 times:
EK and SQ are very dis-similar airlines, other than they are both very successful at what they do, and like to have young and efficient aircraft. Amongst the top airlines - and these 2 are within that elite bracket - whether one airline or another is "better" comes down to personal preference, based only on one's own empirical experience. It is not a judgement that one can make objectively, let alone scientifically. For myself: I have flown EK around 30 times and never had less than a top time. And I fly cattle class...
Floris From Netherlands, joined Jun 2003, 243 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 3428 times:
Quoting LeftWing (Reply 6): EK and SQ flown both....cattel class is the best among its peers such as CX, QR etc....Ofcourse EK J class beats SQ by a mile..
Are you serious? EK doesn't even begin to come close. Nothing beats SQ business and first class. And EK is below average in economy - if only for the additional seats they squeeze in. Things where different 2 years ago, but now, EK is just a shade of what it used to be.
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Reply 8, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3407 times:
Quoting Floris (Reply 7): Things where different 2 years ago, but now, EK is just a shade of what it used to be.
On the Tasman run they are still fantastic (for me). My comparison airlines over the Tasman are NZ and QF. I am curious: if you don't like EK, who do you like? SQ? Do you pay more? ( and I assume, as you don't like EK any more, that you have stopped flying them?).
BrightCedars From Belgium, joined Nov 2004, 1276 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3354 times:
Definitely agree. SQ was already SQ when EK was a regional player and had a fleet of like 2 dozen A310s and A300s. EK grew fast to become a look like it would be an SQ class airline. I've flown over 20 times on SQ and the only other airline I flew that was on par or better is CX. Didn't fly EK yet to make my own comparison (I flew to DXB on AF).
Bill142 From Australia, joined Aug 2004, 8320 posts, RR: 9 Reply 12, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3321 times:
Also take into mind that Singapore had favourable tax laws which allow SQ to turn over their fleet regularly. This is why the order in large numbers to keep the fleet young and expand in a growing market.
Also SQ is a listed company and its books are there for all to see. Its a proven fact that SQ is a profitable airline and in fact only posted a loss on one or two occasions. While EK management tells us they are profitable, and we have no reason to doubt them, SQ's records are much more transparent.
Yes, they are both airlines which have had heavy government input, but that is probably where the similarities end. At times I worry about EK, they are expanding so rapidly that at some point something has to give. They order in massive quantities for expansion for demand that I'm not sure exists. But I'm no expert.
Zkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4739 posts, RR: 10 Reply 13, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3321 times:
EK is a Middle East version of SQ not the other way around.
Besides EK has not done all its growing simply from hardwork as SQ did, EK doesn't have to pay tax etc which is why it has been able to grow so quickly.
Antskip From Australia, joined Jan 2006, 883 posts, RR: 6 Reply 14, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3211 times:
SQ flies to 62 cities in 34 countries, EK to 83 cities in 57 countries. I think EK has an ambitious long-term plan to be a real global airline within the next 20 years, which is why they are busy slowly becoming "as if" a local airline everywhere, and why they need huge orders of planes coming into the grid constantly to satisfy that expansion. It shows every sign of a well-run, well-planned enterprise based on solid principles. SQ are not doing to bad, either! Whether they are expecting to match EK's global network saturation, I would be interested to know. Their asset purchase schedule over the next few years should indicate to some degree whether they do or not.
PolymerPlane From United States of America, joined May 2006, 991 posts, RR: 3 Reply 16, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3163 times:
Quoting Bill142 (Reply 12): Also take into mind that Singapore had favourable tax laws which allow SQ to turn over their fleet regularly. This is why the order in large numbers to keep the fleet young and expand in a growing market.
I do not know how anybody can come into conclusion that favorable tax law allows SQ to turn over their fleet much earlier than other airlines. You have to make profit before you can buy new planes. You can't buy an airplane just by relying on tax breaks.
The tax law allows SQ to depreciate its aircrafts at a faster pace than other airlines, thus, higher depreciation expense and lower tax on profit. However, when SQ sells its aircraft, whatever gain they have from the book value is taxable.
The only advantage you get from this practice is only time value of money, as the total tax you get charged is still the same. Maybe the time value is pretty significant, however, it is not significant enough such that it allows SQ to place fleet renewal program.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 21, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2818 times:
Quoting Floris (Reply 7): Are you serious? EK doesn't even begin to come close. Nothing beats SQ business and first class. And EK is below average in economy - if only for the additional seats they squeeze in. Things where different 2 years ago, but now, EK is just a shade of what it used to be.
Quoting B742 (Reply 2): ! EK used to be great, now I'd rather fly other airlines such as QR, TG, MH, SQ... when travelling to Asia
It's nice to see people agreeing with me here after almost 2 years harping on this subject....
EK's standards have gone down quite a bit the past 2-3 years....Back in
1998- 2001..when I first started flying with them..their services were second to none....when I flew JFK-DXB-KHI-DXB-JFK with them in 2004, I was quite shocked to see how much their services have declined......
I only fly them now for DXB-KHI-DXB services...that's about it....
That's like a developer buying so-many acres of land, that doesn't mean the houses or apartments or malls are going to rise up from nowhere. I think it is rare for any customer in any industry to pay all at once and get all at once. Large orders like can take YEARS to produce and then more to get back what you bought -- that was probably what they were planned/bought for. A carrier can buy 200 aircraft if their credit history could support it, nothing is arriving tomorrow.
The meaning of life is curiosity; we were put on this planet to explore opportunities.
767ER From Australia, joined Apr 2001, 1092 posts, RR: 4 Reply 24, posted (6 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2514 times:
Remember SQ has been around a very long time.....1966 was their first flight and they grew very modestly over the next few years. Of course, they had the support of the Singaporean government. What they did well at was marketing and the fact they were ideally positioned in terms of location to serve the serve the expanding Australia/NZ market. The then tapped into into the burgeoning Asia markets and into the USA They rapidly marketed themselves as a truly Top Class Airline which in many respects still holds true today.
I don't think SQ have expanded anywhere near the extent EK has. But remember it was not that many years ago that each country and their national airlines were fiercly protective of the markets and there were incredibly tough regulatory laws in place preventing new airlines gaining access to a new market. 20 years ago EK would not have had a hope and hell of being such a dominant presence in Australia and NZ.
EK expansion has been astounding to say the least and i wish them well in the future.However, there are always problems when any company expands that quickly..there have already murmirings of a decline in service standards. Mind you, you hear the same thing about SQ at times.
Soooo......no..I would not say SQ is the Asian version of EK.