Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Whatever Came Of SQ Seeking Accesss To SYD-LAX?  
User currently offlineNetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8295 times:

I know they tried pretty hard on separate occasions to get in on this very important route, but the Australian government was not about to let them in on the route.

Did SQ completely give up on this??? Is there a chance they'll try a third time??

Wasn't about the time when Air Canada was looking at YVR-LAX-SYD??

44 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineN809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 8296 times:

Quoting Netjetsintl (Thread starter):
Wasn't about the time when Air Canada was looking at YVR-LAX-SYD??

I thought what I had heard was that AC wanted rights to fly YYZ-LAX-SYD, as they already have a current non-stop YVR-SYD with the 77L.


User currently offlineNetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8204 times:

Quoting N809FR (Reply 1):
I thought what I had heard was that AC wanted rights to fly YYZ-LAX-SYD, as they already have a current non-stop YVR-SYD with the 77L.

Air Canada got the rights to YYZ-LAX-SYD (if I'm not mistaken).... that did not sit well with Singapore since they had just been denied twice by the Australian government..

What i'm wondering is if Singapore will try to gain access to this route again or the idea has been completely abandoned and SQ has moved on??

[Edited 2010-08-21 14:46:31]

User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25457 posts, RR: 22
Reply 3, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 8206 times:

Quoting Netjetsintl (Thread starter):
Did SQ completely give up on this??? Is there a chance they'll try a third time??

I think SQ has realized that there is no possibility that Australia will ever grant SQ rights on that route. There is nothing the Singapore government can grant Australia that would be even half as valuable as SYD-LAX rights for SQ.

Quoting Netjetsintl (Thread starter):
Wasn't about the time when Air Canada was looking at YVR-LAX-SYD??

YYZ-LAX-SYD.


User currently offlinedrerx7 From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5192 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 8071 times:

They also probably see that the yields were plummeting due to DL and V Aus entering the market.


Third Coast born, means I'm Texas raised
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5682 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7821 times:

Quoting Netjetsintl (Reply 2):
Air Canada got the rights to YYZ-LAX-SYD (if I'm not mistaken)

You got a source? AFAIK it was never finalised. Canadian airlines have rights to Australia, with full fifth freedom rights via SFO and/or HNL as per the long standing (1940's) bilateral. Talks were scheduled some time ago to discuss updating the treaty but were delayed at Canada's request. I have heard nothing since then,

Have there been any actual talks/agreement on updating the bilateral?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 7773 times:

SQ are reported to have been close to getting a change of heart from the Australian govt, at one point, with some sort of operational compromise that the airline tried to put forward. Do not know the details of it, but in the end it failed to get the support in the end. By then though, VA had already started flights and DL were on the horizon too. SQ only wanted the highest yield possible from the flights, and in the current bloodbath, its just not worth going near.

[Edited 2010-08-21 20:58:25]

User currently offlineairbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 7, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 7669 times:

Quoting IndianicWorld (Reply 6):
a change of heart from the Australian govt

Hmmm... they might have to wait a bit longer, as at this point in time, Australia doesn't HAVE a government in any meaningful sense of the word! (... and yes, there are many who would say that that has been the case since Nov. 2007 ! But we'll let that one pass for now, huh? ;-p )


User currently offlineChopChop767 From Italy, joined Aug 2010, 226 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7412 times:

If SQ did get the access rights to fly from SYD to LAX, then STAR Alliance flyers would certainly have a tremendous amount of options. Not only United, Air Canada, Air New Zealand (AUK), Continental and Singapore, wow!!! Between STAR and Qantas with One World, I wonder if Delta could maintain the route? I realize that the loads have been good but in terms of capacity, STAR and ONE WORLD would dominate the route. Seems like those alliances already do though?

I most assuredly wouldn't mind flying on SQ from LAX to SYD. I hope they get it. Moreover, I hope they spread the departure times out a bit to buffer against delays for those connecting to LAX.



this year: nap, lgw, fra, dub, fco, add, jib, muc, iad, sea, dca, bos, cdg, ist, bah, prg, ord, hsv, cmn
User currently offlineIndianicWorld From Australia, joined Jun 2001, 2983 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7148 times:

Quoting ChopChop767 (Reply 8):
If SQ did get the access rights to fly from SYD to LAX, then STAR Alliance flyers would certainly have a tremendous amount of options. Not only United, Air Canada, Air New Zealand (AUK), Continental and Singapore, wow!!! Between STAR and Qantas with One World, I wonder if Delta could maintain the route? I realize that the loads have been good but in terms of capacity, STAR and ONE WORLD would dominate the route. Seems like those alliances already do though?

Yields are already bad. Loads are ok, but are inflated by cheap fares. To be any chance of being sustainable, the route needs to increase fares over time to ensure that profits can be made, or someone will drop it.


User currently onlinereadytotaxi From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 3279 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7120 times:

A change in government may offer may offer SQ some hope, have to see what happens at the polls.


you don't get a second chance to make a first impression!
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 6650 times:

Quoting readytotaxi (Reply 10):
A change in government may offer may offer SQ some hope, have to see what happens at the polls.

It's a hung parliament - so nobody can do anything.   It's down to 4 Independant and 1 Green members of the lower house. At the moment, the centre-right Labor party is trying to form a minority-Government with those 5 lower house MPs, but it's anyone's guess how it'll work out or how long it will take.

In the upper house (Senate), there are what looks to be 9 Greens senators, so the situation ends up even more mysterious. And the informal vote (which is not eligible) was very high this time - perhaps reinforcing the fact that nobody is really happy with the major political parties at the moment. Hence the deadlock.

The actual seat numbers so far seem to be:

ALP - 70 seats
LIB - 72 seats
IND - 4 seats
GRN - 1 seat
??? - 3 seats (not decided yet)

You need 76 seats to govern in your own right.

I don't think anything will change - especially the subject of letting SQ onto the Pacific routes, nobody has a real clear mandate on decisions they make in my opinion. And besides, the route is a bloodbath already with DL, UA, QF, AC, VAustralia and a few others (not non-stop) already on the route. I don't think SQ could make a decent run of it.

[Edited 2010-08-22 05:07:27]

[Edited 2010-08-22 05:09:09]

User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 6197 times:

Singapore Airlines would not touch this route with a bargepole any more.

They were only interested when there was a QF/UA duopoly inflating prices and therefore yields, but the advent of competition has made the route deeply unattractive.

In addition, Sydney is the main airport in New South Wales, which has the most dysfunctional and incompetent state government I can think of anywhere in the developed world, and as a result the Sydney metropolitan area has the sort of lagging infrastructure one would expect to find in Lagos rather than an advanced economy.

As a result, Sydney has lost serious economic ground relative to both Victoria (Melbourne) and Queensland (Brisbane, Gold Coast) in recent years, and those cities also now have multiple flights to LAX, which has reduced feed via SYD even further.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8386 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 6055 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):
I think SQ has realized that there is no possibility that Australia will ever grant SQ rights on that route. There is nothing the Singapore government can grant Australia that would be even half as valuable as SYD-LAX rights for SQ.

How is it that Qantas has all kinds of beyond rights beyond Singapore to Europe and all Singapore Airlines end in Australia, ok geography has something to do with it. SQ could fly SIN - SYD to EZE or GRU.


User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5803 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 12):
They were only interested when there was a QF/UA duopoly inflating prices and therefore yields, but the advent of competition has made the route deeply unattractive.

Actually, that is untrue. The airline did officially state that it has not given up, even if some (protectionist?) Aussie a.netters think otherwise.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineNetjetsintl From United States of America, joined Jul 2009, 593 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5730 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 14):
Actually, that is untrue. The airline did officially state that it has not given up, even if some (protectionist?) Aussie a.netters think otherwise.

WOW, definetly WOW

Singapore has "NOT GIVEN UP"... Excellent news, probably the best airline in the world trying to get access into one of the most lucrative and historical routes on the planet..... do you know if they're doing something about it???

Come on Australians, Let'em fly it, wouldn't mind seen a SQ A380 at LAX....


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8410 posts, RR: 10
Reply 16, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5590 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 3):

I think SQ has realized that there is no possibility that Australia will ever grant SQ rights on that route. There is nothing the Singapore government can grant Australia that would be even half as valuable as SYD-LAX rights for SQ.

I'd say that having a unrestricted hub in SIN is at least as valuable but that's just my opinion. The QF's chearleaders will deny it with the excuse that QF could move the hub somewhere else and ignore the fact that no other city in SE Asia commands the type of yields that Singapore does, not to mention the stability/efficiency/quality of Changi as a hub.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
How is it that Qantas has all kinds of beyond rights beyond Singapore to Europe and all Singapore Airlines end in Australia, ok geography has something to do with it. SQ could fly SIN - SYD to EZE or GRU.

  
Because SQ and the Singapore government are not afraid of competition. They know they can be as good as the best.


User currently offlineN809FR From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 182 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 3 days ago) and read 5546 times:

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 14):
Actually, that is untrue. The airline did officially state that it has not given up, even if some (protectionist?) Aussie a.netters think otherwise.

While they may have stated so I have my doubts as to whether Singapore would want to enter the route, which as it stands now is much worse off from a competition standpoint than previously before.


User currently offlinehuaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1114 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4982 times:

Quoting N809FR (Reply 17):
While they may have stated so I have my doubts as to whether Singapore would want to enter the route, which as it stands now is much worse off from a competition standpoint than previously before.

SQ is the kind of airline which probably do not focus as much on yields experienced by its competitors. They see themselves as capable of taking market share and pushing up yields at the same time for themselves.

Take the highly competitive SIN-TYO sector for example. Their ramping up of flights into HND while maintaining NRT despite yields dropping for some of its competitors just demonstrates this. Despite the existence of competition amongst five major airlines from three different alliances, SQ was the only one to push up its market share via its use of the A380 and its entry into HND is its latest strategy to further increase market share.

And that is the simple reason why its competitors shudder at the very thought of SQ entering any market.



It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
User currently offlineZeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 9112 posts, RR: 75
Reply 19, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 4596 times:

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 13):
How is it that Qantas has all kinds of beyond rights beyond Singapore to Europe and all Singapore Airlines end in Australia, ok geography has something to do with it. SQ could fly SIN - SYD to EZE or GRU.

Partially because they were both British colonies, Singapore was an old imperial flying boat base which Qantas used. Also from a military standpoint, a lot of Australians and New Zealand soldiers died defending the island. Bit like asking why US carriers have so many rights beyond Japan.

Also Singapore is a young country, if memory serves it is only about 45 years old, the birthday of the country post dates lot of the ICAO negotiations and agreements.

Between Australia and Singapore it is open skies for carriers of each country. Australian carriers do not have unlimited rights from Singapore beyond (e,g, QF is limited between SIN and Paris), nor do Singapore carriers have unlimited flights to the US from Australia (except freight). I am not aware of any approval given by the US for any Singapore carrier to fly from Australia with passengers.



We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8386 posts, RR: 7
Reply 20, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4487 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Between Australia and Singapore it is open skies for carriers of each country. Australian carriers do not have unlimited rights from Singapore beyond (e,g, QF is limited between SIN and Paris), nor do Singapore carriers have unlimited flights to the US from Australia (except freight). I am not aware of any approval given by the US for any Singapore carrier to fly from Australia with passengers

All the press in recent years about Singapore Air flying from Sydney to LAX has been about the Aussie government deniyng them. I have never heard the US DOT denying SQ LAX to SYD flights. Such a contingency could be covered by the Singapore - USA Open skies treaty.


User currently onlineOA412 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 5295 posts, RR: 25
Reply 21, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

I highly, highly doubt that SQ is interested in LAX-SYD at this point. They were looking to cherry pick the route when it was a duopoly, and thus a gold mine. Since then, the route has gone from 2 carriers to 4, and yields have fallen. Like I said, SQ wasn't interested in the route because it would offer consumers an additional option, they were interested because they saw it as a potential cash cow.

Quoting ChopChop767 (Reply 8):
Not only United, Air Canada, Air New Zealand (AUK), Continental and Singapore, wow!!!

Huh? The only Star carrier that flies LAX-SYD nonstop is UA. CO does not fly to SYD at all (they only serve CNS from GUM a few days a week), and NZ requires a stop in AKL, while AC requires a stop in YVR (which is not exactly a strong selling point to those flying SYD-LAX and v.v.). If SQ were to be granted LAX-SYD authority, they would only be the second Star carrier flying the route nonstop.



Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8386 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 4442 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Zeke (Reply 19):
Partially because they were both British colonies, Singapore was an old imperial flying boat base which Qantas used. Also from a military standpoint, a lot of Australians and New Zealand soldiers died defending the island. Bit like asking why US carriers have so many rights beyond Japan.

Also Singapore is a young country, if memory serves it is only about 45 years old, the birthday of the country post dates lot of the ICAO negotiations and agreements.

The Kangaroo (Empire) route to Australia stopped in many places and the British did use troops from one colony to defend others in both World Wars and other wars. Did Qantas get some rights from Singapore way back when Singapore didn't have an airline ? That seems to be the case. Singapore welcomes competition. Australia's aviation mentalitiy seems very similar that of Canada, Air Canada get protected.

The Canadians got Singapore Airlines to stop flying an Atlantic route from Toronto via Amsterdam to SIN in the 1990's & recently Emirates wanted more flights to Canada but is still very limited so EK is currently flying an A380 to YYZ. I can see in a few years EK flying to Seattle because they will not be allowed to fly to Vancouver.


User currently offlinekoruman From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4266 times:

I repeat, SQ was interested a few years ago simply because fares, yields and profits on this route were inflated by a lack of competition.

But fare levels now are deeply unattractive to any new entrant. In addition, SYD-LAX's remaining profits are primarily in the Premium Economy cabin, which is going great guns for Qantas and V Australia, but is not a product which Singapore Airlines operates.

If you think about it, Qantas Travel operates a large proportion of Australian corporate contracts and would never favour Business and First Class on SQ unless the fares (and therefore yields, and therefore profits) were lower than on QF. And as for economy class, I had the misfortune to fly Economy on SQ BNE-SIN-JNB a few months ago, and I can say that SQ's Economy service levels are no higher than long-haul on QF and NZ, and arguably substantially lower.

We tend to treat Singapore Airlines as some superbly run entity, but in this part of the world it really is not. Their incompetence saw their massive investment in Air New Zealand (and by extension Ansett) evaporate into nothingness, and their main effect upon the Virgin group in Australia has been to cause it untold damage by obstructing its name and then by obstructing its entry into the Star Alliance.


User currently offlineairbear From Australia, joined May 2001, 648 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (4 years 1 month 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4243 times:

Quoting koruman (Reply 24):
Their incompetence saw their massive investment in Air New Zealand (and by extension Ansett) evaporate into nothingness

Hi Koruman, back on-topic , I think you are being a bit harsh here. At the time, if you remember, the idea was for SQ to take the "other" 50% of AN, leaving NZ with the other half. But the incompetent & ego-mad management of NZ ( the NZ management of the 1990's - 9/2001, that is... most definately NOT the management post-9/2001 who have arguably performed miracles !! ) used their first right of refusal to grab the whole of AN out from underneath SQ's nose. As I've said before, the classic case of the dog actually catching the car it was chasing, leading to the mother-of-all "great, now what?????!!!!! " moments.

Quoting koruman (Reply 24):
and their main effect upon the Virgin group in Australia has been to cause it untold damage by obstructing its name and then by obstructing its entry into the Star Alliance.

... this one, yes I'll grant you. But I think for a long time that NZ was also very keenly blocking any entry to *A by DJ, due to their NZ Domestic operation - which situation is now resolved in any case. So watch THAT space.

Cheers, Airbear


25 Zeke : No, the "Singapore - USA Open skies treaty" would be between Singapore and the USA, not Australia and the USA. The US government has not given SQ rig
26 IndianicWorld : It is said that SQ were offered support by the Vic govt to start MEL-LAX a few years ago, but they declined. It just goes to show that they saw the SY
27 OA412 : Exactly. No matter what SQ may have said, they did not want to fly SYD-LAX to support Australia or Australia's consumers, they wanted to fly the rout
28 TOLtommy : Labour (ALP) is centre-left, not centre-right. Strangely enough, the Liberal-National coalition is the centre-right choice. Both are trying to form a
29 airbear : Hi. Well, that would be just about the best reason for any business wanting to do anything, no? Truthfully, I believe that had the SoPac route remain
30 Kent350787 : Many Labor members and former Labor members who now support the Greens would argue that both are now centre-right parties, with the coalition being s
31 koruman : I normally avoid Ansett discussions, but it is fundamental to the context and meaning of this thread, so here goes..... Let's go back a step. In the 4
32 Post contains images cpd : Green are the left, the other two parties are both right wing, just in varying degrees of right-wingness (if there is such a term). They both have ne
33 Post contains images IndianicWorld : Ok, they might be a joke, but they are reported to have been breaking even for a while now, so that comment might be seen as alittle off the mark As
34 eta unknown : Remember when SQ wanted SYD-LAX, the cheapest off-season nonstop fare was around A$1600 return... SYD-LHR was cheaper and further distance. Now the ch
35 Post contains images IndianicWorld : Exactly. It just is not worthwhile to cherrypick anymore
36 jfk777 : Given the huge length the Pacific is, its justified the Singapore - USA Open Skies treaty might contain language allowing SQ to fly via Australia to
37 Post contains links and images jetfuel : SQ should get creative with routes. There is no connection direct to SIN from CNS for connecting traffic from UK/Europe and no CNS-LAX service at pres
38 ikramerica : 2300nm is a long way out of the way. That's 5 hours westbound, not counting the SYD layover time.
39 Viscount724 : Sorry that is not correct. The US-Singapore Open Skies agreement has no restrictions on 5th freedom operations for US or Singapore-based carriers. Th
40 zeke : You are confused here, the agreement between the Singapore Government and the US Government is for the carriers of the two countries to use between t
41 gemuser : Do you really think SYD is INDISPUTABLY an INTERMEDIATE point between SIN and the USA? I don't. If Australia had granted SQ SYD-LAX rights IMHO AA wo
42 Netjetsintl : I didn't know that, but it makes sence the Austrlians were inted in protecting their LAX market.. thanks the picture is a bit clear now
43 jfk777 : Zeke, Its been well published that Emirates, Qatar and Etihad have been carrying lots of connecting traffic via their Persian Gulf hubs from the UK to
44 eta unknown : This is actually the correct interpretation: the intermediate point doesn't necessarily have to be geographically intermediate. However, as correctly
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...
VS Code Share With SQ For Flights To Syd / Oz posted Mon Jan 22 2007 03:51:45 by Kmsyd777
NZ To Return To SYD-LAX? posted Fri Feb 24 2006 22:45:58 by Flyjetstar
SQ May Be Granted SYD-LAX In 2005 posted Mon Nov 15 2004 09:41:17 by CXoneWorld
SQ Still Planning To Fly LAX Nonstop? posted Mon Jun 23 2003 02:06:00 by ConcordeBoy
What Is The Purpose Of Qantas Flight 8 LAX To SYD? posted Tue Mar 4 2008 21:21:47 by Access-Air
Delta: Two Flights To SYD From LAX Tomorrow? posted Fri Nov 6 2009 17:24:38 by Xpfg
Why Didn't VA Use 744 Instead Of Canc SYD/LAX? posted Sat Oct 4 2008 16:15:42 by REALDEAL
Alternatives To V Australia Canc Syd/lax Flights posted Thu Oct 2 2008 18:15:39 by REALDEAL
SQ 77W To SYD posted Sat Jun 28 2008 20:03:49 by 1821
Why SQ A380 Choose To Fly SYD? posted Tue Oct 16 2007 07:31:00 by BRxxx