Singapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13722 posts, RR: 20 Posted (12 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 1301 times:
Oh dear. So the loss of an aircraft has filtered through the system. SIA is suspending some services until March 2001. Shame.
SIA suspends some Asian, Aussie flights
[SINGAPORE] Singapore Airlines (SIA) has suspended some flights mostly to Asian and Australian routes because it is one plane short after the SQ006 crash in Taipei. Some European destinations were also affected.
"SIA will suspend an average of six return flights a week between now and next March out of a total of more than 600 return flights a week," an SIA spokesman told The Straits Times. The airline is expected to take delivery of a new Boeing 747-400 in March.
Flight SQ006 crashed at the Chiang Kai Shek international airport in Taipei on Oct 31, killing 83 of 179 people on board. MEANWHILE, SIA said its overall load factor in October stood at 73.90 per cent, unchanged from the year earlier level. It said cargo load factor fell to 71.30 per cent in October from 72.50 per cent a year earlier, while passenger seat factor rose to 77.40 per cent from 76.20 per cent.
Overall traffic rose 6.20 per cent year-on-year in October, with passenger traffic rising 8.20 per cent and cargo traffic rising 3.90 per cent. Capacity rose in tandem with higher traffic, with passenger capacity rising 6.50 per cent in October and cargo capacity rising 6.10 per cent. -- Bernama, AFX-Asia
Airmale From Botswana, joined Sep 2004, 372 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (12 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1169 times:
were any crew members also killed in the crash? and regarding the nationalities onboard, there were two Pakistanis also but holding U.S citizenship, both father and son expired in the crash.My they rest in peace-Ameen.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 3, posted (12 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
I think the information given by Singapore Airlines is very doubtful. I know SQ's operation very well, and the loss of just one aircraft shouldn't lead to the cancellation of flights, because they have more than sufficient back up to overcome a temporary equipment shortage.
Note that no exact flights were mentioned, so I think SQ will use the fact that it lost an aircraft as an excuse to cancel flights for which bookings are low.
As you know airlines are not allowed to cancel flights because of low bookings, but can indeed cancel flights for reasons as 'lack of equipment'.
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 4, posted (12 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1130 times:
Doesnt SQ have several B743 aircraft sitting in storage at SIN, doing nothing except awaiting buyers? They could certainly reintroduce one or two of these planes on regional routes until the new aircraft is delevired - something about this press release does not make sense.
Varig md-11 From France, joined Jul 2000, 1578 posts, RR: 8 Reply 6, posted (12 years 12 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 1129 times:
I can't believe this coming from SQ!
aside from the fact they have many 743 waiting for buyers,they could rent a plane...Cameroon airlines (UY) lost it's unique 742 at CDG weeks ago and they never suspended their flights:they always found a plane to rent to carry on -right now a citybird 763-
AF TW AA NW BA U2 TP UX LH SK AZ MP KL SN VY HV LS SS TK SQ RG
Andrew From Singapore, joined Dec 1999, 369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 8, posted (12 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1092 times:
Let's look at the facts here, guys. SIA said that some services will be temporarily due the lack of aircraft. Approximately 6 flights a week will be affected, which accounts for 1% of total weekly ops. All the affected flights will be re-instated with the arrival of the next 747-400 in March 2001 anyway, which also happens to be at off-peak season for most (if not all) airlines.
Rumours that flights are cancelled due to poor loads are simply that. Rumours. Speculation isn't going to achieve anything.
I've got a flight from Singapore to Melbourne in Feb 2001 that's been changed from a 747-400 to a 777-300. The SIN-MEL sector is always fully booked during this period at the end of the Southern Hemisphere summer, and it certainly doesn't make economic sense for any airline to reduce capacity when demand outstrips supply.
SQ probably doesn't want to bring back the old 747-300's is because it does not fit in with the rest of the fleet in terms seats, entertainment systems, etc. A lot long-haul of passengers aren't going to be happy when they've paid good money for the level of service they expect, just to find out that the aircraft they're on doesn't have these capabilities.
They're trying their best to overcome the current shortage of aircraft, so let's not jump to conclusions too quickly until we know all the facts, guys.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 10, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1033 times:
I am very sorry to tell you that you probbaly don't know the SQ operations very well. SQ doesn't need to bring in an old B747-300, neither are they in need for leasing an extra aircraft from outside. They can perfectly operate all scheduled flights with their current fleet, even with one aircraft less, as they have more than enough backup.
Their schedule allows a lot of flexibility indeed, and just by reducing the other aircraft's ground time in SIN a little bit, they would easily to operate all scheduled flights.
Now, don't tell me that this wouldn't be possible. SQ have an average ground time in SIN of over 5 hours, so reducing it in average by about 15 minutes wouldn't hurt their operations at all, I would say.
No, I stick to my point. This is just one of the airlines' tricks to be able to cancel flights on which they are facing low bookings... And this is not even a shame. Other airlines are doing it as well.
PerthGloryFan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 1000 times:
Sure "lack of equipment" is a good excuse to cancel an underbooked flight, but is this really the case with SIA?
I'd be interested to hear from anyone on this forum who flew an SQ flight that was less than 65% full, and indicate that this was regularly the case for the route they flew on.
As for reducing a/c turnaround at their HQ; ok even if it was operationally possible to do this, say 9V-SPwhatever is able to depart 15 min earlier, is there a slot available at its destination for to land 15 min earlier?
If the destination was PER, this would be not a problem, but SYD, NRT, CDG or LHR, etc probably would be.
Curfews and restricted landing slots at destinations often determine departures, which in turn may also be subject to similar constraints - so while utilisation of equipment may not be as high as the accountants would want, an airline has to juggle this with all the other parameters that make up a schedule.
IMO SQ, and CX, want a good return on the large investment they have made in their cabin systems. Most Oceania, and to some degree N. American, pax are advanced purchase tourists or VF&R, so to get their money back SQ & CX are now catering more for the now growing high yield SE & East Asian business pax market who are paying full fares. To do this they have to reduce some less profitable, but still well patronised, flights until their new a/c are delivered.
Yield and the bottom line rule, as always.
The following Star Alliance airlines also serve SIN:
Air New Zealand
All Nippon Airways
So Europe, N. Asia, N. America and NZ are covered, with ANZ also providing some limited uplift from Australia. Perhaps Ansett need to apply for rights to SIN from Australia?
Anyway that's my assessment for what it's worth.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 13, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 991 times:
I am sorry to tell you, but you didn't understand the meaning of my post. Possibly, I didn't explain it good enough. So, let me try again...
My point is that SQ is perfectly capable of operating its normal schedule with the aircraft they currently have at their disposition.
From an operational point of view, however, regarding they have one less aircraft in their fleet as to the standard the schedule was designed, it would require a reduction of AVERAGE ground time in Singapore of about 15 minutes or so for each of the other aircraft.
This doesn't mean all flights have to leave 15 minutes earlier, but, theoretically, it means that SQ would dispatch each of its aircraft to one earlier flight as to the 'normal' operational situation.
It was my point that SQ has enough operational flexibility to do so, and that, therefore, their statement is somewhat misleading.
Brissie_lions From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 976 times:
One of the three daily PER-SIN flights will be temporarily suspended in this story. SQ's PER-SIN flights have very high load factors, especially over the Feb/Mar period, as this is our summer season (when most Singaporeans visit WA), and will definitely be re-instated when the new aircraft are delivered in March.
I have spoken to a SQ-staffer here in Perth and he has confirmed the story. He pulls no punches and doesn't do the bullshit thing.
BTW...I am ex-SQ here in PER, and I also know SQ operations very well, and low bookings are not a reason for this decision.
Andrew From Singapore, joined Dec 1999, 369 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 964 times:
Let's look at it this way. The flights affected are destinations within Asia and Australia. These 2 regions make up the 2 largest areas of operation for SIA, and are very high-yield routes. A reduction in capacity in any of these sectors is like shooting yourself in the foot. SIA probably doesn't have a choice in this case as they are trying to achieve minimum disruption to its services. A little bit of juggling is required, and it is inevitable that something has to be sacrificed.
I don't see why SIA should be reducing capacity on their most important and busiest routes if you say that they're using this as an excuse to cut loss-making or low yield flights. There's no sense in that argument.
DatamanA340 From South Korea, joined Dec 2000, 547 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 962 times:
An airliner that has fleet of 100 a/cs like SQ, (Well, does SQ now have about 80?) They will reserve several bigger planes like 747 for unpredicted problem; If an SQ 744 has engine problem at NRT, this will fly immediately to NRT. That says just loss of one plane won't harm the airliner's flight schedule. Just take a reserved one and fly them regularly makes it "in Ordnung." Not to mention another SQ 744 will be delivered within a few months.
Hailstone From Germany, joined Nov 2000, 408 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 954 times:
i do not think that sq will ferry an empty 744 sin-nrt to pick up stranded pax for the return because another a/c is AOG in nrt; they will hand off the pax to their *-alliance partners (ana, united, thai via bkk) or others on the sector.
i would agree with you that they might have some a/c at changi (=HOME) in case they develop an AOG fro flights ex sin
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 18, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 929 times:
Brissie_lions, if you know anything about operational theory you would know that it makes ABSOLUTELY no sense for an airline operating a fleet of 36 B747-400s, and loosing 1 of its aircraft, to state that it cannot fill up this gap by its own means.
Fur sure not, if you take into account that this airline is also operating 15 A310s, 15 A340s, 13 B772s and 5 B773s, all of which are able to take over selective routes usually operated by the B744s.
If you don't understand this, please let me know, I will publish a mathematical proof for you.
Phileo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 19, posted (12 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 919 times:
Currently I'm wait listed for SQ215 flight from SIN to PER on 5 and 6 of Jan. So far I didn't received any information from my travel agent. I don't think the PER flight will be affected due to high load factors whenever I fly with SQ from and to PER.
PerthGloryFan From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 751 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (12 years 12 months 18 hours ago) and read 889 times:
With respect mate I think you're missing the point.
Firstly, what you say is correct for a static market, but it's not static! East & SE Asia are economically recovering much faster that was predicted, so SQ, and CX, are looking to increase, NOT maintain, their flight offerings in the region.
For the information of a couple of other posters: Remember, having a full plane does not mean you're making lots of profit - the original Pan Am had high LFs until the end, the problem was that most of the pax were redeeming freq flyer points so they were flying for free!
So to make MORE profit, low yield Aussie tourists are being temporarily bumped to make room for the growing number of high yield full fare paying business clients in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong & China, Thailand, etc.
I believe this would have happened regardless of the tragic loss of SQ006.
It's really as simple as that - airlines follow the $$$s.
I also think that part of the reason that this news, which is after all only a small reduction of services, is getting wide coverage in Australia, is because private airport operators need to maintain their revenues, whereas in the past the govt operators were not so concerned about this.
HB-IWC From Greece, joined Sep 2000, 4450 posts, RR: 73 Reply 21, posted (12 years 12 months 7 hours ago) and read 847 times:
Dear PerthGloryFan, as an operational consultant in the airline industry, I am perfectly aware on the ways of making and loosing money in the airline industry. I know that high load factors don't necessarily mean high yield and vice verse.
My statements, however, consider SQ's original press release, as posted by Singapore_Air, in which SQ states the loss of an aircraft as the reason to make some schedule adjustments. Please re-read the article if you don't believe me. Note that they don't mention any reinforced schedule into some trunk markets.
I am over a hundred percent sure that this information is not correct, as SQ is perfectly able, even with one aircraft less, to operate its normal schedule.
So, it is my point that there should be some other reason. And, indeed, maybe they might shift some capacity, but they didn't announce it in the press release!
Such an announcement would indeed be unlawfull, as IATA airlines are required to fly at least their published schedule, and any cancellations should be explained.
And the cancellation of one flight in order to reinforce the schedule to another destination is just not allowed. However the market is not static, scheduled airlines can't just announce flights and consequently not fly them and fly other routes instead. This is a practice reserved for charter companies.
So, if SQ were to cancel some flights, and secretly add service to other destinations with those planes, they might get in serious trouble with IATA, and I think they are more then wise enough not to do so.
Phileo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (12 years 12 months 5 hours ago) and read 841 times:
Just check out the SQ online flight schedule, it was being confirmed that SIN--PER flight has been reduce to 2 flights per day from 8th of Feb. However, it will be resume from 1st of Mar. Luckily I wasn't being affected.