Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
UK/Singapore Sign "Open Skies"?  
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25524 posts, RR: 86
Posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 3339 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I may be behind the times, but it is reported that the UK and Singapore have signed a "landmark agreement" which is effective Open Skies:

http://www.forbes.com/afxnewslimited...eds/afx/2007/11/21/afx4362951.html

According to at least one newspaper, this clears the way for SQ to fly trans-Atlantic from LHR, but the airline is presently hampered by lack of slots:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/ma...07/11/24/et-singapore-news-124.xml

They are hinting that SQ may even fly the A380 across the pond.

Perhaps the UK members know more? Or have I been alseep while all this was going on?  Smile

mariner


aeternum nauta
24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 1, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3206 times:

No you haven't been asleep!

Yes, this revolutionary Open Skies deal was announced earlier this month and has been signed by the wonderful Ruth Kelly of the UK and the Ministry of Transport for Singapore.

This allows total freedom in the Skies for carriers of the United Kingdom and Singapore. It was also an unexpected deal out of the blue.

The deal allows unlimited flights between the UK and SIN. It also allows cabotage for carriers of Singapore. It allows the airlines of the two countries to base their aircraft in the other country and operate flights between UK/SIN and a third country without having to originate from or return to the country of nationality.

With this, Singapore Airlines can operate transatlantic ex-UK as it has Open Skies with the USA already.

Singapore Airlines has been waiting for transatlantic rights for over 20 years.

I commend the Governments of the United Kingdom and Singapore for their anti-protectionist approach and for putting the airline industry and consumers first. Hopefully, Singapore Airlines will buy some slots so that travellers can fly between the UK and the USA in greater comfort and luxury.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 2, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3193 times:

It also allows for carriers from both countries to operate domestic flights at the opposite end, so SQ could fly SIN-LHR-MME for example. Could be interesting...


flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25524 posts, RR: 86
Reply 3, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
The deal allows unlimited flights between the UK and SIN. It also allows cabotage for carriers of Singapore.

Cabotage? Wow. But I guess it would be difficult for UK carriers to have cabotage at Singapore of course.  Smile

Very good news, thanks for that.

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 3146 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
With this, Singapore Airlines can operate transatlantic ex-UK as it has Open Skies with the USA already.

It recently signed an agreement with Canada also. This agreement with the UK was announced about 3 months ago.


User currently offlineDLPMMM From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 3596 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3081 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
Singapore Airlines has been waiting for transatlantic rights for over 20 years.

I thought SQ was already flying transatlantic from FRA to NYC. Was I dreaming?

I doubt the cabotage aspect will be used by either country's airlines.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3076 times:

Apologies, to clarify, Singapore Airlines has been waiting for transatlantic rights between the United Kingom and the United States of America for over 20 years.


Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 3072 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 6):
Singapore Airlines has been waiting for transatlantic rights between the United Kingom and the United States of America for over 20 years.

Yup, true. I also thought that they had slots for a 4th flight into/ex-LHR for ages, just never exercised them? I thought they were around 1200 arrival, 1530 departure, but I could be wrong...



flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineDavid_itl From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2001, 7413 posts, RR: 13
Reply 8, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2948 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 6):
Singapore Airlines has been waiting for transatlantic rights between the United Kingom and the United States of America for over 20 years

As I remember they were offered them out of MAN years ago but turned them down - it's LHR-JFK they want.


User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2939 times:



Quoting David_itl (Reply 8):
it's LHR-JFK they want.

Maybe now, given semi-open-skies, they will follow BD and go for different options?



flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineMH001 From Malaysia, joined Nov 2006, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2918 times:

Well...you can say that you laud Singapore and UK for their anti-protectionism laws.

How about Malaysia? Just because UK or even France and Australia are not interested in the Malaysian market it does not mean that Malaysia Airlines is not allowed to increase capacity into London or operate transatlantic flights. I know that MH was offered MAN-JFK but wanted the premium LHR-JFK traffic. Also MH has been having financial difficulties so they have sold their LHR slots to AI.

France has only just recently allowed MH to operated daily KUL-CDG flights. MH has been lobbying for years but France has always been resistant towards it. And also from the rumour mill, MH is not welcomed into SkyTeam by AF who are eyeing TG. This is despite KL's long term partnership with MH. If AF does not want to serve KUL, let MH do it instead - apparently the loads are pretty good on their CDG-KUL flights.

So - anti protectionism only works when there is benefit for UK/France/USA ... Doesn't work for all countries which will only lose out in the long term.


User currently offlineMH001 From Malaysia, joined Nov 2006, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 2916 times:

just to add - i realise the malaysian government has been protective towards MH but these two specific examples (UK and france) are where the Malaysians are keen to expand bilateral services.

User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 2874 times:



Quoting MH001 (Reply 11):
are where the Malaysians are keen to expand bilateral services.

Tell you what, get the Malaysian government to open up and let anyone fly anywhere, and see if others reciprocate!!

All governments want to protect their own, period.



flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineMH001 From Malaysia, joined Nov 2006, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

okay - there are examples of routes where the government has been protecting MH such as the KUL-SIN route.

however, MH had been trying to increase flights to LHR for a long time. They had to fight to take over BA's rights which they were reluctant to give up once they withdrew from KUL. MH only managed to get a second daily flight to LHR after it signed a 10 year codeshare deal with VS and used their rights.

Why so difficult? If airlines like BA and AF can't make KUL work, why stop others from trying?

That's just double standards.

And LHRblueskies - tell me when did MH stop BA or QF operating more flights to KUL? they pulled out on their own accord. Prove me wrong...


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 14, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 2696 times:



Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
the wonderful Ruth Kelly of the UK

That's the first time I've heard her described like that...!

Interesting news by SQ though, perhaps see service routing to New York through MAN in future to avoid the slot constraints at LHR?


Dan Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineMariner From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 25524 posts, RR: 86
Reply 15, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2660 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

It raises a question,though.

When British Airways ordered the A380, most people here didn't think they would fly it LHR-NYC, believing frequency was needed more on those trans-Atlantic flights.

But - if SQ does start flying, say, LHR-JFK with the A380, they might attract a fair amount of premium pax.

Will British need to put the A380 on the route to retain those pax?

mariner



aeternum nauta
User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11686 posts, RR: 60
Reply 16, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2640 times:



Quoting Mariner (Reply 15):
Will British need to put the A380 on the route to retain those pax?

I think it depends. A fair amount of pax will wish to 'try out' the A380, just to have the bragging rights for having flown it, but, as far as most business travellers are concerned a single flight by SQ is not going to be terribly useful (unless marketed/codeshared with other alliance partners such as UA) compared to the multiple frequencies offered by BA.


Dan Smile



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25838 posts, RR: 22
Reply 17, posted (6 years 12 months 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 2620 times:



Quoting PhilSquares (Reply 4):
Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 1):
With this, Singapore Airlines can operate transatlantic ex-UK as it has Open Skies with the USA already.

It recently signed an agreement with Canada also. This agreement with the UK was announced about 3 months ago.

But, as I understand it, the new Canada-Singapore agreement is far from Open Skies.


User currently offlineKaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12562 posts, RR: 35
Reply 18, posted (6 years 12 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2549 times:

It would be good to see SQ flying t/a from LHR, but getting slots at LHR will be a nightmare; for the times they would need, the cost would be massive. I'm guessing SQ would probably want to operate to the US either as a continuation of the SQ 322 (arriving LHR from SIN at 5.30, departing at 7am?) or the SQ 316 (arriving LHR 3pm, departing c. 1600-1630). The return section of this flight could be timed so as to meet the departure time of 11am from LHR to SIN, i.e:

SIN-LHR 0900-1500
LHR-JFK 1630-1910

JFK-LHR 2220-0950
LHR-SIN 1100-0730

The scheduling "works", but of course, the difficulty would be getting a slot for an arrival at that time. Good luck, SIA!


User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2472 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2355 times:

Whatever happened to the Cathay Pacific effort for LHR-JFK? Four years ago, around this time (Nov 2003), there was a new UK/HK air service agreement that stipulated VS get HKG-SYD and CX get LHR-JFK (although CX still needed to acquire the slots). VS went ahead with LHR-HKG-SYD, CX obviously went nowhere.

Anyone know why CX didn't/couldn't go ahead?

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 5):

I thought SQ was already flying transatlantic from FRA to NYC. Was I dreaming?

SQ have flown SIA25/26 SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN for a while now.

Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
The scheduling "works", but of course, the difficulty would be getting a slot for an arrival at that time. Good luck, SIA!

If they're in it for the long term, I suppose they wouldn't have a problem opening the chequebook...



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineCol From Malaysia, joined Nov 2003, 2128 posts, RR: 22
Reply 20, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2227 times:

Forget LHR, they should fly a 744 to MAN and onto JFK. BA then have an excuse to pull the 767 out of MAN and back south. BMI could also feed into MAN from the regions. Another route could see the existing 772 flight go to IAD, linking into UA. A third service could cover BOS (better still BDL). This could get away from having to transit at LHR for those poor souls who want to go to UK regions but don't want to stop in London, plus it gives me more options over here Big grin

MAN would need to improve its connections and quality, as it is a little topsy turvey at present.


User currently offlineBCA2005 From India, joined Sep 2005, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 2103 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
SIN-LHR 0900-1500
LHR-JFK 1630-1910

JFK-LHR 2220-0950
LHR-SIN 1100-0730

The scheduling "works", but of course, the difficulty would be getting a slot for an arrival at that time. Good luck, SIA!

It doesn't really work, as it would mean that the aircraft that arrives from SIN at 0500 would have to sit on the ground at LHR until around 1800.


User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2088 times:

SQ Owns 49% of VS.

Given SQ's desire to shed itself of VS.. they could retain some VS slots as part of any sale.

That would also give some SQ competition for the bearded wonder.

Given full open skies SQ doesnt need VS at all.
SQ has star alliance feed and an excellant product.. good connections with UA and BD from LHR and within the US.

As I keep saying remember to quote me but VS wont exist in 2012.. no partner, no feed, no alliance and losing money.. open skies and even competition from your reluctant co-owner... expect one of 2 things..

No VS, or a VS wholly owned 100% by another airline. (BD, LH all potential owners).



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlineStarGoldLHR From Heard and McDonald Islands, joined Feb 2004, 1529 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (6 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2088 times:



Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 19):
Whatever happened to the Cathay Pacific effort for LHR-JFK? Four years ago, around this time (Nov 2003), there was a new UK/HK air service agreement that stipulated VS get HKG-SYD and CX get LHR-JFK (although CX still needed to acquire the slots). VS went ahead with LHR-HKG-SYD, CX obviously went nowhere.

This CX flight is actually BA's 8 & 9th daily LHR- JFK pairs... CX decieded to codeshare with BA.



So far in 2008 45 flights and Gold already. JFK, IAD, LGA, SIN, HKG, NRT, AKL, PPT, LAX still to book ! Home Airport LCY
User currently offlinePhilSquares From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (6 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2015 times:



Quoting Kaitak (Reply 18):
SIN-LHR 0900-1500
LHR-JFK 1630-1910

JFK-LHR 2220-0950
LHR-SIN 1100-0730

Sorry, but that wouldn't work. SQ 308, the inbound you refer to only goes back as SQ 321 in the evening. It doesn't have enough of time to do the LHR-JFK-LHR turn as you suggest.


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...
Singapore / Australia "open Skies" - I Hope Not posted Wed Feb 26 2003 01:27:11 by Qantaspower
UK Again Rules Out Open Skies With USA posted Wed Jun 13 2001 08:57:18 by Singapore_Air
US, NZ, Singapore, Chile, Brunei Open Skies posted Tue Jan 23 2001 17:37:24 by Travelin man
BBC Series "Spooks" This Week In UK posted Thu Nov 22 2007 01:54:00 by Scouseflyer
UAE And Spain Sign Open Skies Policy... posted Sat Oct 27 2007 15:51:38 by EK156
UK "bans" Mahan Air posted Sat Jul 21 2007 20:50:16 by David_itl
Open Skies: "All About Heathrow" posted Mon Apr 30 2007 10:24:44 by Hugosel
"Open Skies" For Cargo Airlines posted Thu Mar 22 2007 17:07:44 by Mozart
Italy Says Still Undecided On "open Skies" Deal posted Wed Mar 21 2007 14:26:08 by TACAA320
Virgin Eyes Europe-U.S. Flights Under "open Skies" posted Sun Mar 18 2007 06:20:36 by TACAA320