Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Projected SQ A 380 Routes+SIN-SYD-LAX, SIN-AKL-LAX  
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8081 times:

My guess:

SIN-HKG-SFO, SIN-SYD, SIN-MEL, SIN-LHR, SIN-FRA-JFK (maybe not FRA-JFK. That leg might be run by the B 777-200ER or even the B 787 when they arrive), SIN-NRT-LAX, SIN-CDG etc etc.

What about SIN-AKL? Any chance?

Any news on SQ's proposed SIN-SYD-LAX and SIN-AKL-LAX? Wonder when will they approve both routes. Any chance of going A 380?

They ordered 19 right? I suppose they will exercise the remaining 6 right?

72 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAxio From New Zealand, joined Jul 2006, 313 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8059 times:

Star Alliance would have to dissolve before SQ ever ran AKL-LAX. SIN-SYD-LAX is (forever) being blocked by protectionist Australian authorities.


Time for a new viewing deck at AKL!
User currently offlineB747forever From Sweden, joined May 2007, 17065 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8049 times:



Quoting Axio (Reply 1):
Star Alliance would have to dissolve before SQ ever ran AKL-LAX.

True, it would ruin ANZ route to LAX.

Quoting Axio (Reply 1):
SIN-SYD-LAX is (forever) being blocked by protectionist Australian authorities.

Agree with that. QF would face a very hard competition from SQ.



Work Hard, Fly Right
User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 8042 times:



Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
What about SIN-AKL? Any chance?

Doubtful. Loads may be insufficient especially since they tend to fluctuate too much across the seasons with this route, even with SQ monopolising it now.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 4, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7991 times:

What routes will go A 380? Will they exercise the remaining options for the A 380? Or even order more?

Perhapst he Labour Party might grant SQ to do SIN-SYD-LAX? Or SIN-MEL-LAX? Possible for them to do SIN-SYD-SFO?

SQ is good at annoying its star partners


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4823 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7987 times:



Quoting B747forever (Reply 2):

Quoting Axio (Reply 1):
Star Alliance would have to dissolve before SQ ever ran AKL-LAX.

True, it would ruin ANZ route to LAX.

It would hurt NZ definantly (and QF for that matter), because it would be capacity dumping... NZ has effectively 2 daily direct flights total from AKL to LAX with 772ER/744. QF has 1 daily flight AKL-LAX which will shorty be 744 again. It would effectively be moving the market from about 1100 daily seats to about 1600 daily seats or about a 1/3 increase which for such a longhaul route is a pretty massive jump (especially considering it normally only has load factors 70-80% on average...If the average load factor was 80%+ then yes there might be a case for it.
NZ has a good product and reputation and is popular with customers many of whom are uncomfortable with SQs subservant style service (even if it is generally considered to be excellent service) so whilst it would be tough it wouldn't be the end all of everything for NZ. Personally I think SQ has no business whatsoever sticking its nose into the Oz/NZL-USA market except possibly PER-LAX... which is easy enough to go via SIN.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3018 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7965 times:



Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
Any news on SQ's proposed SIN-SYD-LAX and SIN-AKL-LAX?

Nope. None whatsoever.

Quoting United Airline (Thread starter):
Wonder when will they approve both routes

WHen the economy picks up and after V Australia has established itself. Hang on there will more than likely be Delta there as well by then. Hhhmmm maybe we don't need SQ for competition..............................


User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7946 times:



Quoting B747forever (Reply 2):
True, it would ruin ANZ route to LAX.



Quoting B747forever (Reply 2):
Agree with that. QF would face a very hard competition from SQ.

SQ may bring competition to the routes, but it is not a definite market-killer, especially when QF and NZ offers fairly good products. It is the protectionists who seem to promote the notion that SQ is going to ruin its competitors on any route it flies on, when there are far more airlines competiting with SQ on its routes than there are with either QF or NZ.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineMaverickM11 From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 17444 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7928 times:

Why on earth do they want to fly it if they have no SQ feed on either end? It would be a much more expensive DMEIAH and we all know what a failure that has been.


E pur si muove -Galileo
User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 7928 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
NZ has a good product and reputation and is popular with customers many of whom are uncomfortable with SQs subservant style service (even if it is generally considered to be excellent service) so whilst it would be tough it wouldn't be the end all of everything for NZ.

The market appears to think otherwise. Surely the hordes of people "uncomfortable with SQs subservant style service" would be keeping NZ alive on the SIN-AKL route?



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlinePlanemanofnz From New Zealand, joined Sep 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7771 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Whenever I fly AKL-SIN it's always packed. It is so hard to get a seat even months in advance on these services. The problem only got worse when they downgraded from a 744 to a 77W. IMO, after places like LAX, SFO, MEL, FRA/JFK get A380's and if there are more to spare, I think they would put an A380 on SQ286/285

BTW, AKL-LAX on SQ will never happen. It's always been SYD-LAX that SQ were interested in.


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 11, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 7738 times:



Quoting Axio (Reply 1):
SIN-SYD-LAX is (forever) being blocked by protectionist Australian authorities.

It's 2300nm out of the way and has no reason to exist other than to take business away from Australian companies.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineAirvan00 From Australia, joined Oct 2008, 758 posts, RR: 1
Reply 12, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7705 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
It's 2300nm out of the way and has no reason to exist other than to take business away from Australian companies.

or any other American airline who would like to join UA on the route.


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4823 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7705 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 9):


Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 5):
NZ has a good product and reputation and is popular with customers many of whom are uncomfortable with SQs subservant style service (even if it is generally considered to be excellent service) so whilst it would be tough it wouldn't be the end all of everything for NZ.

The market appears to think otherwise. Surely the hordes of people "uncomfortable with SQs subservant style service" would be keeping NZ alive on the SIN-AKL route?

a) different market than AKL-LAX (with a much larger Asian customer base to SIN)
b) NZ previously flew AKL-SIN with a sub-standard product (old un-refurbished 763ERs), by the time they changed over to a product (which in SQs own CEOs words was a better product) they had already lost the majority of their customers to SQ. If NZ had the deep pockets of SQ then they would have stuck with the route and would have by now probably had a successful route alongside SQ, however NZ didn't want to wear losses for a year or two so quit the route to pursue more profitable routes.



56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 7632 times:

So what other routes will go A 380?

If they get SIN-SYD-LAX will it be A 380?

Wonder if they can get SYD-SFO instead if they can't get SYD-LAX


User currently offlineIkramerica From United States of America, joined May 2005, 21511 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7582 times:



Quoting Airvan00 (Reply 12):
or any other American airline who would like to join UA on the route.

True, but the Aussie government shouldn't really be concerned with the fate of American carriers, only their own airlines.

And frankly, I would bet UA would work something out with SQ to codeshare on SQ's metal and use the 744s elsewhere.



Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7573 times:



Quoting Ikramerica (Reply 11):
It's 2300nm out of the way and has no reason to exist other than to take business away from Australian companies.

And give Australian customers another possible airline to fly with when going to the US, and give Singaporeans and the millions transiting through Singapore an option of transiting through Australia en-route to the US, which while longer, offers opportunities for stopover businesses and holidays.

Protectionism is protectionism, and the ultimate loser will always be the travelling public.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineJbernie From Australia, joined Jan 2007, 880 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7535 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 16):
And give Australian customers another possible airline to fly with when going to the US, and give Singaporeans and the millions transiting through Singapore an option of transiting through Australia en-route to the US, which while longer, offers opportunities for stopover businesses and holidays.

And on a stopover of more than a few hours you can do SIN-SYD with SQ and SYD-LAX/SFO on a UA flight. No need for SQ to on fly on this route when it is served by a partner airline like UA.

SQ will at the absolute minimum have to wait until V.Australia gets their planes and are on the route for a few months to see what happens before the Australian Govt would reconsider.


User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7511 times:



Quoting Jbernie (Reply 17):
And on a stopover of more than a few hours you can do SIN-SYD with SQ and SYD-LAX/SFO on a UA flight. No need for SQ to on fly on this route when it is served by a partner airline like UA.

For some (and perhaps quite alot of) SQ regulars, flying trans-pacific on an airline like UA is not an option. Ditto for some discerning Australian travellers. It is of course theoretically possible to fly on any airline to anywhere on this planet. But when a traveller considers comfort, reliability, safety and other factors important in his travel options, why should he be denied this choice?



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3018 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 7492 times:



Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 7):
It is the protectionists who seem to promote the notion that SQ is going to ruin its competitors on any route it flies on, when there are far more airlines competiting with SQ on its routes than there are with either QF or NZ.

Really? How many people compete with SIN on, for example, SIN-FRA? 1 and it would be Qantas. How many compete on SIN-CDG? 1 and it would be Air France. And those are just taking 2 route examples. So where are these "far more airlines" you talk about?

Quoting United Airline (Reply 14):
Wonder if they can get SYD-SFO instead if they can't get SYD-LAX

They won't get anything. It is not necessary to have SQ on the OZ-USA route to enhance compeition because V Australia and Delta will do it. There will not be a SYD-LAX, a SYD-SFO or anything for SQ.

Quoting Huaiwei (Reply 16):
Protectionism is protectionism, and the ultimate loser will always be the travelling public.

Australia has one of the most liberal aviation regimes in the world. And with non-stops to North America by Air Canada, Hawaiian, United and Qantas and 1 stops on Air New Zealand, Air Pacific and Air Tahati Nui PLUS V Australia and Delta coming it can hardly be argued that there isn't choice or competition.


User currently offlineHuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 7440 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 19):
How many people compete with SIN on, for example, SIN-FRA? 1 and it would be Qantas.

SQ competes with both QF and LH on SIN-FRA.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 19):
So where are these "far more airlines" you talk about?

Over 70 airlines fly into Singapore Changi Airport from 130 destinations alone, compared to about 55 into all of Australia from about 77 destinations. Clearly, SQ has to contend with far more competitors (and potential competitors) than QF does across more routes.

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 19):
Australia has one of the most liberal aviation regimes in the world.

A country having "one of the most liberal aviation regimes in the world" doesn't give it any special arguments to be protectionist on specific routes. I would consider it a folly if Singapore makes the same boast about liberal aviation policies and yet shuts QF completely out of the SIN-LHR route. The United Kingdom certainly didn't need to be "one of the most liberal aviation regimes in the world" when it gave Singapore seventh freedom rights out of the UK to any other point in the world, which Singapore happily reciprocated. Neither regime had to resort to restricting each other from their most lucrative routes, even when there are plenty of options from LHR to the US or from SIN to Australia.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7151 times:

haha, yeah right like the governments of Australia and New Zealand would allow SQ to fly SYD-LAX or AKL-LAX. SQ has been rejected time and time again on the SYD-LAX route, or am I missing something???

User currently offlineDocPepz From Singapore, joined May 2001, 1971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 7090 times:

SQ can actually fly SIN-AKL-LAX cos Singapore, NZ and the US have an open skies agreement. Whether they want to is another question - from what I understand AKL is among the worst performing routes in terms of yields. Granted the flights leave full, but the yields are apparently horrendous. About 2 years ago 1 Singapore Dollar bought about NZ 83cents. Today, 1 Singapore Dollar buys NZ$1.23. SQ's fares ex NZ have not risen. So they're basically bleeding methinks! Hopefully the inbound traffic helps - but hey, the Indian Rupee and Pound Sterling have collapsed against the Singapore Dollar too - And India and the UK form a large chunk of NZ's inbound tourism... so yields can't be that great too!

As for SQ's SIN-SYD-LAX.... The problem is Singapore gave away everything to Australia without asking for anything in return. This stems from the fact that the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS), is both operator of Changi Airport and negotiator of air traffic rights for Singapore's carriers.

I'm sure CAAS tries its best to be impartial and stuff.... however it is difficult to justify that CAAS is an impartial player when it negotiates for air rights since they stand to directly gain from the outcome of such negotiations. After all, CAAS the airport operator wouldnt care which airlines flew to Singapore, since they would channel passengers into the airport to splurge on duty free items and dine at the fantastic restaurants.

Thus that's why I think they have been so liberal in giving away rights to airlines left right and centre without getting much in return for SQ. So Singapore has no trump card left for Australia since Australian carriers have unlimited access to and through Singapore.

My view is that it is fundamentally flawed that CAAS the regulator is supposed to represent Singapore's national interests at the negotiating table, and CAAS the airport operator stands to directly gain from the outcome of such negotiations

It is true that Singapore only has one international airport and there are merits of CAAS being both airport operator, civil aviation regulator and air traffic rights negotiator at one go. However, the analogy would be asking Macquarie Bank, the operator of Sydney AIrport, to represent Australia while negotiating with the government of Japan in getting Qantas additional frequencies into Japan. Macquarie Bank wouldn't give a toss as to whether Australia's national interests are protected, and wouldn't care if JAL got all the rights to Australia without QF getting anything in return.

The restructuring of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore into a New Airport Company and a separate civil aviation regulator from the middle of next year couldn't be more timely. As the New Airport Company focuses on the operations and profitability of Changi Airport, hopefully the new civil aviation authority will be more impartial in fighting for the interests of all stakeholders like airlines and the airport operator, alike.


User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3619 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 7068 times:



Quoting Sydscott (Reply 19):
Australia has one of the most liberal aviation regimes in the world. And with non-stops to North America by Air Canada, Hawaiian, United and Qantas and 1 stops on Air New Zealand, Air Pacific and Air Tahati Nui PLUS V Australia and Delta coming it can hardly be argued that there isn't choice or competition.

Not to pick nits, but I wouldn't consider Hawaii to be North America. Hawaii is still 5 hours away from the west coast of North America.



PHX based
User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 24, posted (5 years 8 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 6978 times:

UA is not that bad. Wonder when will they put PTVs in their B 747-400 economy class

Is AC flying SYD-LAX now? Where does AC fly to Australia from?


25 Tayser : Vancouver and daily.
26 Planemanofnz : If this is true, then why do they maintain 2 flights a day? And why do they use the 77W here? Wouldn't they want to use a more high density aircraft
27 Jbernie : Far West America maybe? Either way if you can fly on a Hawaiin flight from Australia and end up in the continental United States they are a competito
28 Sydscott : And ask yourself why that is exactly? Maybe because the likes of LH/AF/KLM etc withdrew from Australia because they couldn't make money on the part o
29 Zkpilot : Yes but look at where SIN is located... Pretty central globally... The only place that an airline could not easily operate direct to would be South A
30 QFYMML : It should be noted to those that have asked also, that SQ do not want MEL-LAX nor SYD-SFO, they know that they will be perceived as having the superio
31 United Airline : Will they put the A 380 on LAX-SYD if the government gives green light? Why?
32 Airvan00 : They won’t approve it. As well as for all the reasons above, additionally the current aviation minister is elected by an anti nose lobby in his Syd
33 Yyz717 : AC flies SYD-YVR with a daily 77L.
34 ZK-NBT : Hmm, interesting comment since most of SQ's AKL traffic is Europe bound. I heard a couple of months back that things were holding up ok for SQ at AKL
35 ANstar : The 787 is supposed to be used on regional routes, so I doubt it! They only want SYD-LAX and i really can't see them getting it in the near future. A
36 Kaitak744 : Based on their current schedule: 13?? 747-400s SIN-NRT-LAX (2 aircraft) SIN-FRA-JFK (3 aircraft) SIN-MEL (1 aircraft) SIN-MEL (1 aircraft) SIN-SYD (1
37 Gemuser : This is blatantly untrue! What SIN got in exchange for Oz getting 5th freedom rights from SIN to India, Middle East & Europe was 6th freedom rights f
38 SpeedyGonzales : This is a concept I really don't understand. If SIA has the right to carry passengers between Australia and Singapore, what the passengers do upon ar
39 Gemuser : In practical terms what 6th freedom allows is for, in this case, SQ to sell TICKETS in Oz to India, Middle East & Europe. Without this right SQ could
40 United Airline : Actually Cathay Pacific wants Hong Kong-Sydney-Los Angeles too from what I read. Wonder if they have a better chance than SQ Does AC fly SYD-LAX?
41 Legacyins : No.
42 Jbernie : Well if SQ can ask for I guess they can too, though it is even more out of the way than SIN-SYD-LAX
43 Huaiwei : Trying to decipher the lack of competition into Australia doesn't quite discount the fact that SQ still has to face far more competition than QF does
44 Gemuser : Because the Oz government trade aviation service rights with those other governments to gain the right for Oz airlines (NOT QF) to fly those routes.
45 Zkpilot : Glad you have pointed that out.... around the world International flights are most often where airlines make most of their profits (just look at EK f
46 Post contains images Huaiwei : SIN has nothing to trade, because QF already has what it wants. Is QF pressing to fly any other route out of SIN? SIN-KUL perhaps? Thus it is hardly
47 Gemuser : What??? SIN has nothing left to trade because it has already traded everything away for what it has already got. In other words SIN is bankrupt, in a
48 Zkpilot : Also NZ (and they have done previously), but with the lack of domestic feed in Australia and with 2 airlines (QF and UA) already operating it at the
49 Alessandro : I think we rather see a QF flight SYD-AKL-LAX with the A380, they visited AKL as the first A380 to do so during 10th of october.
50 Zkpilot : Would like to see that but very unlikely... QF generally struggles to fill a 744 and has been flying A332 on this route (MEL-AKL-LAX). Also it crews
51 Alessandro : A bit OT, I think the Perth-Jo´burg route will be operated by A380 during the 2010 World cup if Oz qualify.
52 Dennys : Sorry , to summ up , does that mean that the A388 cannot fly SIN- LAX ???? I cannot believe that ! with such boring and boring advertisments about the
53 Gemuser : Well if it can't QF will sue the pants off the entire EU!!! The A380 is CURRENTLY in operation with QF on SYD-LAX & MEL-LAX. (In fact the second A380
54 QFYMML : Because SYD-LAX is where the majority of the Aus-N. America market flights are. Largest market - largest number of premium passengers - biggest oppor
55 Gemuser : QF don't normally fly PER-JNB. If the A380 goes to JNB for the world cup it'll be SYD-JNB. Gemuser
56 Astuteman : That's a 7 600Nm sector. I suspect you won't find anything outside of the 772LR that will haul economic payloads on that route.. (particularly westbo
57 Gemuser : Sorry Dennys, I read that as SYD-LAX, NOT SIN-LAX! Gemuser
58 Tayser : This begs the question why MEL & BNE have to be lumped in the same basket as SYD I'm willing to put $50 on the Victorian and Queensland governments c
59 Marara : The same domestic competition area the Australian government has given Tiger Airways (SG Owned) Virgin Blue (previously UK owned) and Ansett (previou
60 AustrianZRH : SQ and their A340-541 will probably disagree . All business class and weight restricted, but still economically viable, according to what I've read (
61 Juventus : Wouldn't that be funny, if the A380 couldn't do SYD-LAX? .......right Gemuser, Qantas would probably take Airbus to court. I have a question, I'm awa
62 Astuteman : That is indeed the obvious exception - a bit of a specialist application, though. Rgds
63 Quetzal : Bingo..... Huaiwei, this question might be inviting a repeat of the sound of a broken record.... but why SHOULD a Singaporean airline be granted acce
64 Gemuser : No they didn't as it is outside the terms of the current bilateral which does allow AC to serve SFO/HNL-SYD, but not LAX-SYD. Talks on a new bilatera
65 QFYMML : I might be reading you wrong but I don't think it's the gummint holding the other cities back. I think it's the airlines themselves. In the current e
66 Tayser : The market hasn't been tested as the restrictions still apply - as I said, all it will take is incentive package from a state government - once rights
67 Gemuser : I am confused by your statement. What restrictions, on who? Until about 1970 SYD, PER & DRW were Australia's only true international airports. Essend
68 Tayser : No 5th freedom rights for the likes of SQ/CX/MH/TG/EK etc onward to North America via Australia. Another tidbit I find interesting, the UK and Singap
69 Gemuser : Why would we give them 5th freedoms? What's in it for us (Oz)? Actually that would be 7th freedoms, although where the line is can be difficult to dr
70 Sevenforty : Hi all. Just after reading some of the posts I just wondered about the SQ SYD-LAX thing. Am I right in thinking that SQ can actually fly non-stop from
71 Jbernie : Not forgetting the biggest factor, once the 747 came on board and you could fly much father you didn't need to stop in DWN, in 82 I flew QF from SYD-
72 Zkpilot : I think that was the 744. The 743 still had to go either via AKL or HNL or NAN and I don't think QF flew them to NAN on a regular basis. Even the 744
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...
A-380 (SQ-380 SIN-SYD) Sydney Tarmac Photos posted Thu Oct 25 2007 04:23:22 by JetMech
Did SQ And AC Give Up Entirely On LAX-SYD? posted Fri Jul 13 2007 04:25:22 by Juventus
SQ Syd-lax posted Wed Jan 10 2007 16:00:15 by Daddy1
First SQ A380 Flight: SIN-SYD In Dec 06 posted Wed Aug 2 2006 01:02:55 by RedChili
3x Jetway At SIN For SQ 380 posted Wed Aug 17 2005 23:09:34 by SafetyDude
Reported Decision On SQ Rights SYD-LAX posted Mon Jun 13 2005 02:03:36 by SunriseValley
SQ Adds 4th Flight Syd-Sin Starting 1 JUN posted Sun May 23 2004 00:59:39 by Qantasboy
Flown SQ A345 Between SIN And LAX Yet? posted Mon Feb 16 2004 20:42:07 by Airplanetire
SQ A345 Routes (other Than LAX, EWR) posted Tue Jan 20 2004 12:32:39 by Sq_ek_freak
Is There Any Flight SYD-LAX-LHR-SIN-SYD? posted Tue May 23 2000 02:24:31 by Goooooaaal