Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ - Why Split Operations At EWR/JFK?  
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

I'm sure they have a good reason for this, but I was curious as to why SQ operates their daily New York-Singapore flight from EWR, but their daily New York-Frankfurt-Singapore route from JFK? Are their runway issues affecting the performance of the A345, or just a better market for SQ's nonstop out of EWR?

Just curious -- thanks.


"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5369 times:

Singapore used to do EWR-AMS-SIN like they do JFK-FRA-SIN before the A340-500. I highly doubt that there are runway issues considering Emirates and Thai both fly the A340-500 into JFK and 31L is the longest commercial runway in the U.S. I mean the concorde used it!

I am guessing that Singapore thought that EWR-SIN was a more profitable route then JFK-SIN and maybe EWR-AMS-SIN wasn't doing as well as JFK-FRA-SIN?



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5334 times:

Quoting AlitaliaMD11 (Reply 1):
31L is the longest commercial runway in the U.S.

Thanks for the info, but 31L is 14,572 ft.

34L at DEN is 16,000 ft.

Of course, I know now that 31L at JFK is plenty long for the A345. I'm assuming that the NYC O&D market is more than sufficient to support two stations.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

It's historical. Up till 1997, SQ flew 3/wk SIN-AMS-JFK, and 4/wk SIN-FRA-JFK. When the Singapore-Germay bilateral was revised, SQ could operate daily between FRA and JFK. But, what to do with the AMS frequencies? Because of time zones and optimal (early morning) arrival times into SIN, the NYC-SIN services had to depart around 10pm, and that would mean two flights departing JFK-Europe-SIN at roughly the same time. The other options were (1) cancel the AMS service or (2) route it elsewhere. The decision was made to route it to EWR. When the 345 nonstop service came into play and the AMS service was canceled, they decided to keep it at EWR.

User currently offlineHaggis79 From Germany, joined Jun 2006, 1096 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

actually, I think most larger European carriers serve JFK and EWR... (LH, AF, KL do and probably a lot more)

ok, SIA is not an European carrier, but I can't see any reason why they shoudn't...



300 310 319/20/21 332/3 343 AT4/7 143 B19 732/3/4/5/G/8/9 742/4 752/3 763/4 77E/W CR2/7/9 D95 E45/70 F50 F70 100 M11 M90
User currently offlineAlitaliaMD11 From Spain, joined Dec 2003, 4068 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5299 times:

Quoting Ssides (Reply 2):
Thanks for the info, but 31L is 14,572 ft.

I stand corrected. I remember hearing that it was and maybe at the time it was.



No Vueling No Party
User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5263 times:

Supposedly EWR-AMS-SIN was less profitable than JFK-FRA-SIN so they chose to start the NYC-SIN nonstop from EWR...Although I'm sure there were other considerations as well.

User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 7, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5193 times:

Quoting RJpieces (Reply 6):
Supposedly EWR-AMS-SIN was less profitable than JFK-FRA-SIN so they chose to start the NYC-SIN nonstop from EWR...Although I'm sure there were other considerations as well.

This is the key issue......since EWR-AMS-SIN was not a daily service, SQ could only keep the EWR-AMS leg filled by offering very low fares on this routes (in the Netherlands, there were amazingly cheap fares offered through travel agents, at time as low as Euro 199.00 return before taxes). It was really quite interesting....SQ offered very good service, the only 744 on the route, flights that operated at great times for biz travel (early morning departure out of AMS into EWR before lunch....and a late evening departure out of EWR allowing a full day of business with a noon arrival at AMS) but SQ was literally giving the seats away on the segment.

When SQ had to make decisions regarding the launch of the NYC-SIN nonstop, the nonstop flight went to Newark for two reasons:

1. SQ was very happy to be done with the EWR-AMS service but wanted to keep a flight out of EWR to maintain the following that SQ had developed with the financial crowd in NYC (that actually find EWR more convenient that JFK).

2. SQ developed a very nice and very profitable niche with the JFK-FRA-SIN route.....SQ had little problem keeping the JFK-FRA segment filled with a good mix of FRA and SIN bound pax paying good prices, thus SQ really did not want to give up this lucrative niche.

Thus the 744 onestop service to SIN remained at JFK, and the new A345 nonstop service to SIN operates out of EWR.


User currently offlineBDL2DCA From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5153 times:

Don't forget the two aircraft also offer different classes.

JFK: C, J and Y

EWR: J and Y+

Could be that there was enough J demand out of EWR to warrant the service, but not enough C demand?



146,319,320,321,333,343,722,732,733,734,735,73G,738,744,752,762,763,772,ARJ,BE1,CRJ,D9S,D10,DH8,ERJ,E70,F100,S80
User currently offlineQantas744ER From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1286 posts, RR: 4
Reply 9, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Quoting BDL2DCA (Reply 8):
Could be that there was enough J demand out of EWR to warrant the service, but not enough C demand?

Not quite, and this is what pissed off SQ, because the a345 could not carry promised loads meaning that they could not also insall First meaning that only Business and Economy were left, wich forced SQ to increase the fares in C and Y

Cheers Leo



Happiness is V1 in Lagos
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9633 posts, RR: 52
Reply 10, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5081 times:

One nice thing about EWR-SIN is that it allows some more connections. JFK is highly O/D and SQ doesn't really have a partner to feed that flight. At EWR people can connect a bit more. I flew ORD-EWR-SIN and there were three people connecting on to the Singapore Airlines flight. I think it is very nice that they routed it through EWR since UA only serves JFK from LAX, SFO, LHR and NRT. However I think this route is still primarily O/D, but I still liked going SQ with its superior business class to UA which has one stop service to SIN via HKG.


If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently onlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17482 posts, RR: 45
Reply 11, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4977 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 7):
2. SQ developed a very nice and very profitable niche with the JFK-FRA-SIN route.....SQ had little problem keeping the JFK-FRA segment filled with a good mix of FRA and SIN bound pax paying good prices, thus SQ really did not want to give up this lucrative niche.

Anyone know what percentage of the passengers that board in JFK actually fly through to SIN? Outside of the F cabin, I would imagine it's fairly low when there is a nonstop across the rivers. The JFK/FRA segment is never very full and I would think that most of the demand is local only on both JFK/FRA and FRA/SIN rather than JFK/SIN.



E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 12, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4962 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
The JFK/FRA segment is never very full and I would think that most of the demand is local only on both JFK/FRA and FRA/SIN rather than JFK/SIN.

You raise interesting questions......your remark that the JFK-FRA is not very full is interesting, I was under the impression that SQ did well with the JFK-FRA segment and the flight benefitted from STAR alliance support.

I find it so interesting that we sometimes here such diverse things about specific routes and airlines.


User currently offlineStar_world From Ireland, joined Jun 2001, 1234 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4951 times:

Quoting BDL2DCA (Reply 8):
Don't forget the two aircraft also offer different classes.

JFK: C, J and Y

EWR: J and Y+

Could be that there was enough J demand out of EWR to warrant the service, but not enough C demand?

Actually, this is a bit misleading - JFK offers First (F), Business (C / J) and Economy (Y), while EWR offers business and economy+. C & J are used pretty much interchangeably to represent business class.

The reason there is no F on the A345 isn't because of a lack of demand out of EWR, that's just how SQ configured their A345s in general.


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9633 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4926 times:

Quoting Star_world (Reply 13):
The reason there is no F on the A345 isn't because of a lack of demand out of EWR, that's just how SQ configured their A345s in general.

As stated, that probably had more to do with performance limitations on the A345 since that is an extremely long route. The plane has two separate galleys for the forward and rear Raffles Class cabin. Those four front rows of Raffles really should be First if only the first class seats weren't so heavy. From taking that flight, I met with a number of people that would have preferred and have been willing to pay for a fully flat bed on the 18 hour journey (myself included even though I was pretty comfortabe in J)



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineMadViking From Canada, joined Jul 2003, 194 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4917 times:

Quoting BDL2DCA (Reply 8):
Don't forget the two aircraft also offer different classes.

JFK: C, J and Y

EWR: J and Y+

That should change it they opt to put the 777LR on this route (once they get some).


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 16, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4909 times:

Quoting Star_world (Reply 13):
that's just how SQ configured their A345s in general.

To be complete.....SQ really did not have much of a choice with the A345 configuration......F was eliminated because the F suites are quite heavy and if the A345s were equipped with F seats and all of the stuff that must be onboard to provide full F class services, the A345 would struggle with operating the very long SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR routes......as SQ's number one priority and sole reason for purchasing the ULR aircraft was to operate out of SIN to NYC and LA nonstop, SQ made the most logical compromise, eliminate F on these routes and go with a low density J and Y+ layout.

The compromise of not being able to offer F on the ULH flights is one key reason why many expect that, at some point, SQ will move along from the A345 and place an order for 772LRs.....we dont know if and when this will happen, the bigger issue is whether ULH flights are profit centers?


User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9633 posts, RR: 52
Reply 17, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4892 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 16):
.as SQ's number one priority and sole reason for purchasing the ULR aircraft was to operate out of SIN to NYC and LA nonstop, SQ made the most logical compromise, eliminate F on these routes and go with a low density J and Y+ layout.

60 seats in J is a huge number. More than half the plane is Raffles Class. It is made up of two cabins. With a capacity similar to that of a normal two class 757, the yields must be pretty high in order for these routes to work.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 18, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4881 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 17):
the yields must be pretty high in order for these routes to work.

Thats the BIG question.....are the ULH routes profitable? Only the financial people at SQ know for sure, although there are rumors that the ULH business is actually costing money. And, some have suggested that if the ULH flights were making money, SQ would have already placed an order for 772LRs to upgrade these flights (and offer F class). Its unclear what is fact and what is just chat....but being that SQ only took delivery of five A345s (they never took up their options for the second five airplanes) and has yet to place a 772LR order leads me to believe that some of these rumors are very true.


User currently offlineLH459 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 886 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4844 times:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 11):
Anyone know what percentage of the passengers that board in JFK actually fly through to SIN?

SQ offers very competitive fares to Asia which are only valid on the JFK flight. From my experience, this flight sells out regularly, but unfortunately there's no way to determine what the breakdown is.



"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4437 times:

Quoting Ex_SQer (Reply 3):
SQ flew 3/wk SIN-AMS-JFK, and 4/wk SIN-FRA-JFK

Are we forgetting the ex JFK-BRU-SIN with the 747-300?  wink 

Other SQ route to the U.S. have included:

SFO-HNL-SIN
747-300/747-200

LAX-HNL-SIN
747-300/747-200

LAS-HKG-SIN
777-200

ORD-AMS-SIN
777-200


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 21, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4402 times:

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 20):
Are we forgetting the ex JFK-BRU-SIN with the 747-300?

I flew JFK-BRU-JFK with SQ back in the early 1990s.......the BRU stopover was dumped in favor of FRA once SQ could get authority to carry passengers between JFK and FRA. Was that flight with a 743......my memory is that it was a 744 from the outset?


User currently offlineMalpensaSFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4391 times:

Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 21):

I flew JFK-BRU-JFK with SQ back in the early 1990s.......the BRU stopover was dumped in favor of FRA once SQ could get authority to carry passengers between JFK and FRA. Was that flight with a 743......my memory is that it was a 744 from the outset?

SQ started the route in 1986? with the 747-300..


User currently offlineDutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 57
Reply 23, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4376 times:

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 22):
SQ started the route in 1986? with the 747-300..

I am thinking later, around 1991 or 1992.......going on memory so a SQ expert is going to have to help out. If the route did commence in 1986, it was with the 743 since the 744 was not yet in service (duh!), but I think that you are a bit early with SQ starting service to JFK.


User currently offlineAbrelosojos From Venezuela, joined May 2005, 5090 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (8 years 1 month 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 4358 times:

Quoting MalpensaSFO (Reply 22):
SQ started the route in 1986? with the 747-300..

= SQ had no NYC presence in 1986.

-A.



Live, and let live.
25 Post contains images MalpensaSFO : Lets try 1994 with the 747-400...
26 Dutchjet : Make in 1992 in a 744 and you have a deal....I only know this because I flew the route with SQ in 1992 when I first starting spending a lot of time i
27 Cory6188 : My dad is a dentist, and one of his patients is a ticket agent for SQ at EWR. He was talking with her about her job, and she said that the EWR-SIN fli
28 OB1783P : In any case, and that goes for SQ, AI, AF and everyone else, the two airports are not interchangeable for travelers from outside the city: coming from
29 Humberside : The following European airlines do: BA VS AF LX (EWR is operated by Privitair) LH AZ LO OK
30 Post contains images SQ452 : JFK also offers a First Class product, where as EWR doesn't, and believe it or not it matters to some people who are in love with F (like my dad). Im
31 Jetdeltamsy : How would you know this? Pissed of who at SQ?
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...
Why Were Runways At EWR And TEB Closed Last Night? posted Mon Apr 26 2004 03:39:55 by Nycfuturepilot
SQ 747-400 Questions At EWR posted Sat Nov 30 2002 22:06:53 by CX747
SQ A340 At EWR At 11AM Today, Why? posted Mon Aug 21 2006 01:18:27 by Worldsurfer
Why Was There A NW A330 At EWR Today? posted Mon Mar 27 2006 01:41:51 by Nycfuturepilot
SQ At EWR posted Thu Mar 24 2005 17:43:44 by San747
SQ A345 At EWR posted Sat Dec 11 2004 13:42:01 by Rw774477
Why So Few LCCs At EWR posted Mon Nov 1 2004 04:31:35 by Northwestewr
LX/AA Lounges At LAX/JFK/EWR/ZRH posted Tue Jun 24 2003 05:08:53 by Elal106
Thai MD-11 At EWR Today - Why? posted Sun Dec 16 2001 03:28:55 by Mcringring
Question About Air Operations At DCA. posted Sat Nov 18 2006 01:32:12 by MainRunway