Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ And ORD:  
User currently offlineNomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 474 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4972 times:

To this day I am puzzled why SQ would route ORD-SIN traffice via Europe.

1) At the time, AMS was open skies with the US.
2) AMS is one of the lowest yielding European cities from ORD.
3) ORD and SIN are both Star hubs.
4) ORD via Asia is 1,200 miles shorter than via AMS (approximately 2.5 to 3.0 hours)

http://gc.kls2.com/

ORD-SIN: 9,357 miles

ORD-AMS: 4,120 miles
AMS-SIN: 6,535 miles
Total: 10,655 miles (almost 1,300 miles than a nonstop flight, and 1,200 more than via TPE)

ORD-TPE: 7,457 miles
TPE-SIN: 1,997miles
Total: 9,453 miles (less than 100 miles than a nonstop flight)

I chose TPE as there is no non-stop service between TPE and ORD. NGO, KIX, and ICN were considered as well.

Also, there is a perception in the US that if you are going to Asia, you go west, not east.

19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTWA902fly From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 3128 posts, RR: 4
Reply 1, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4945 times:

For what its worth UA 895/896 operataes ORD-HKG-SIN... and both UA and SQ are in Star Alliance... so maybe that market is filled with that daily 744. There are also multiple connections available which dont take any longer than UA's flight... UA, JL, NH via NRT and KE + OZ via ICN....

I'd say the two cities are pretty well connected.

'902



life wasn't worth the balance, or the crumpled paper it was written on
User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32789 posts, RR: 72
Reply 2, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4892 times:



Quoting Nomorerjs (Thread starter):
Also, there is a perception in the US that if you are going to Asia, you go west, not east.

To Far East Asia, yes.

To Southeast Asia, it does not matter, and most people who are flying between the U.S. and Southeast Asia probably know that.



a.
User currently offlineAvek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4387 posts, RR: 19
Reply 3, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4762 times:



Quoting Nomorerjs (Thread starter):
I chose TPE as there is no non-stop service between TPE and ORD. NGO, KIX, and ICN were considered as well.

1. SQ did not then and does not now codeshare with United.

2. TPE is the weakest nonstop Asia market from the USA in terms of yields.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 4, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4753 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 2):
To Southeast Asia, it does not matter, and most people who are flying between the U.S. and Southeast Asia probably know that.

Depends where you are, but for the most part anywhere in Asia is more direct if you go West.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineRyanair!!! From Australia, joined Mar 2002, 4755 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4691 times:

Back then, traditional Trans-Pac transit points were already saturated. NRT was slot restricted, TPE too low yielding, ex-ICN already served by KE, and ex-HKG by UA. So what next? Europe, of course.... SQ's 2 TATL transit points are FRA and AMS. Needless to say, I don't think LH would have appreciated another Star Alliance partner gnawing at their feet on this sector (as JFK was already flown via FRA by SQ, and ORD served by UA and LH) so I guess AMS was the next best thing.

It was such a pity this route was not given the opportunity to grow because before we knew it, the twin towers were struck.



Welcome to my starry one world alliance, a team in the sky!
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23022 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4670 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4):
Depends where you are, but for the most part anywhere in Asia is more direct if you go West.

 checkmark 

ORD-TPE-SIN is about 600 nm shorter than ORD-HEL-SIN-- the most direct eastbound route



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8380 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 4657 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4):
Depends where you are, but for the most part anywhere in Asia is more direct if you go West.

I traveled between the East Coast and SIN for years. Only once did I go west (via LAX), and found it to be a lot worse. The daytime flight over the Pacific was an absolute horror. Going via Europe is soooo much better.
Having said that, I don't think the ORD route was primarily for Asia bound passengers. I think they were primarily targeting the TATL business and get better utilization out of their aircraft which otherwise sit idle in AMS all day.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 8, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 4514 times:



Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4):
Depends where you are, but for the most part anywhere in Asia is more direct if you go West.

That's definitely not true for India and other points in South Asia. From points on or near the west coast of North America it's about the same distance via the Atlantic and Pacific. In price-sensitive markets like that most passengers don't care how they get there if the fare is low enough.

From the east coast, it's often just as fast via the Atlantic to places like BKK/KUL/SIN etc. than via Pacific gateways, and with so much capacity via Europe the fares are often lower..


User currently offlineMAH4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 32789 posts, RR: 72
Reply 9, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4441 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 6):
Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 4):
Depends where you are, but for the most part anywhere in Asia is more direct if you go West.

checkmark

ORD-TPE-SIN is about 600 nm shorter than ORD-HEL-SIN-- the most direct eastbound route

Which is absolutely a negligible amount for such a long distance.

Getting to Southeast Asia and India is usually much easier on the body going East-bound, even from the West Coast, unless you get a non-stop like LAX-BKK/SIN.



a.
User currently offlineFilAmAirlines From United States of America, joined Jun 2008, 139 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 4424 times:

Are you talking about SQ or SQ cargo?
I thought SQ removed ORD-SIN pax service during the SARS outbreak.
I wish there was SQ at ORD because I refuse to fly Delta's 747-400 until the install PTV same thing goes for UA's.
I don't understand though in the UA 747-400 safety video, say there's 'Video Screens' in UA Y or Y+. There are none and I don't think UA ever will.



FNT is the death knell for MBS and LAN because of WN's commitment
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23022 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4085 times:



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
Getting to Southeast Asia and India is usually much easier on the body going East-bound, even from the West Coast, unless you get a non-stop like LAX-BKK/SIN.

Presumably, though, that means that coming back is easier on the body eastbound (i.e. via the Pacific) also, right? So if this is a determining factor, we'd have to know whether they're shooting for US or Asia originating traffic.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 12, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4008 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 8):
That's definitely not true for India and other points in South Asia.



Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
Getting to Southeast Asia and India is usually much easier on the body going East-bound

For India, gong East is definately better. However from most points in the US, going West is better for SouthEast Asia.

Take SQ's IAH-DME-SIN for example. That flight is 1,000 or so longer than if they had routed the flight via NRT or ICN. Thats hardly negligable.

The only way its negligible is if you are coming from the North East Coast. For everyone else traveling to Southeast Asia, going west is better. Im not necesarily saying stoping on the west coast is best, but in these cases its better to go through NRT vs. LHR or wherever.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineZKEOJ From New Zealand, joined Feb 2005, 1024 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3092 times:



Quoting Airbazar (Reply 7):
I think they were primarily targeting the TATL business and get better utilization out of their aircraft which otherwise sit idle in AMS all day.

That might be a good point. When I was working in a travel agency in Germany years back, people were very keen to fly SQ to JFK, rather than LH, BA, AF, KL, or any American carrier... They had a top reputation, and it was just for the FRA-JFK-FRA legs. By the way, it was similar with NZ's FRA-LAX-FRA (which they gave up later, and code-shared with LH to/ex LAX)...

Cheers
micha


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25346 posts, RR: 22
Reply 14, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3053 times:



Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 11):
Quoting MAH4546 (Reply 9):
Getting to Southeast Asia and India is usually much easier on the body going East-bound, even from the West Coast, unless you get a non-stop like LAX-BKK/SIN.

Presumably, though, that means that coming back is easier on the body eastbound (i.e. via the Pacific) also, right? So if this is a determining factor, we'd have to know whether they're shooting for US or Asia originating traffic.

That's contrary to many studies of jet-lag (and my own personal experience of longhaul flights) which usually say that it's easier to overcome jet-lag effects when flying westbound than eastbound, as it's esier to compensate for a longer day than a shorter day.

If I was flying to somewhere roughly half way around the world, I would fly around the world westbound so both sectors of the trip were westbound.


User currently offlineSurfandSnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2869 posts, RR: 30
Reply 15, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 2350 times:

If SQ and UA were codeshare partners, there might be justification for such a service. But seeing as how they are not, SQ lacks the feed to help make such a flight viable. Moreover, geography limits SQ's onward connecting potential. Outside of KUL, CGK, DPS, and PER, I can't think of too many major cities that wouldn't be better served via NRT/ICN/HKG (BKK, MNL, etc.) or LAX (SYD, MEL, BNE, AKL, etc.) or LHR/CDG/FRA/AMS (all of the Indian subcontinent). ORD is a very well served airport as it is.


Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
User currently offlineNomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 474 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 2313 times:

Is it me, or does SA)">UA favor LH?

Canada, SA)">UA Express and SA)">UA have more transborder flights from hubs (ORD, IAD, DEN) than AC (AC seems to get a few out of YYZ and YYC)

SA)">UA reluctantly gave NH acces to T2 at ORD.

SK is in T5 at ORD, not T2 with SA)">UA.

OS didn't get much help from SA)">UA at ORD.

SA did not start ORD as SA)">UA favored routing via FRA or MUC on LH.

MX moved to AA (and soon to be OneWorld). SA)">UA didn't help the cause much.

Asiana serves ORD, but with a very late departure and minimal feed, if any from SA)">UA.

SQ did not code share with SA)">UA when in ORD. This could have made the route last, but with SA)">UA flying ORD-HKG-SIN, they were not interested.

TG has talked about ORD, but is not there.

We can probably add more, but it is my impression that it is SA)">UA / LH or no way in Star.


User currently offlineLAXdude1023 From India, joined Sep 2006, 7616 posts, RR: 24
Reply 17, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2267 times:



Quoting Nomorerjs (Reply 16):

TG has talked about ORD, but is not there.

I really think TG would fail in ORD. They barely survive at LAX. TG will fail anywhere else they go.



Stewed...Lewd...Crude...Irreverent...Belligerent
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23022 posts, RR: 20
Reply 18, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2265 times:



Quoting Nomorerjs (Reply 16):
We can probably add more, but it is my impression that it is SA)">UA / LH or no way in Star.

I don't know. The thing you have to remember about UA and LH is that they have a much longer (and deeper) relationship than UA and other *A partners. I wouldn't read too much in to the gate situation at ORD; LH was in T-1 first, and UA was reluctant about NH because there's only so much ticket counter space in T-1 (which is also why CO is keeping its counters in T-2 when it moves its gates to T-1).



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8380 posts, RR: 10
Reply 19, posted (5 years 4 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2081 times:



Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 14):
If I was flying to somewhere roughly half way around the world, I would fly around the world westbound so both sectors of the trip were westbound.

For me personally that's true for shorter legs like TATL travel. However, for really long journeys like US-Asia, I much prefere to go Eastbound, not necessarily because of the jet-lag which is bad no matter which way you go, but because you get a lot more "night" flying which I personally find to be more confortable. I find it a lot easier to catch a few zzzs when I can see that it's dark outside, than when the sun is shining brilliantly which you get a lot of when you fly westbound.


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...
DL And ORD: It's Terminal 2... posted Sat Dec 20 2008 14:18:00 by FWAERJ
SQ And SQ Cargo posted Wed Dec 10 2008 20:08:05 by Ansett767
BA,SQ And VS Discussing 25% Stake In KingFisher posted Mon Nov 17 2008 01:36:30 by Aviationbuff
DL/NW Merger And ORD Terminals: T2 Or T3? posted Mon Sep 22 2008 06:55:23 by FWAERJ
Microwaves On Board SQ And EK posted Mon Sep 22 2008 01:51:09 by Avina10
Concorde: # Of Years In Service With SQ And BA? posted Sun Aug 17 2008 06:53:13 by Aircanada014
AA Cuts At DFW And ORD? posted Tue Jun 17 2008 13:58:26 by Aadfw
SQ And IAH "Seeing Great Results"!? posted Thu May 15 2008 23:10:05 by Thomasphoto60
SQ And The 77L? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 15:27:26 by EA772LR
SQ And Flowers In The Y Cabin posted Sun Feb 17 2008 19:51:03 by FlyPIJets