Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ - Why Not SIN-JNB-GRU?  
User currently offlineTCASAlert From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 7817 times:

Just curious as to the reasons why SQ fly SIN-BCN-GRU, a trip of almost 12000 miles, when they could do SIN-JNB-GRU, almost a direct track and one would think higher loads and more connections from JNB? After all SQ already have good inroads into Europe through many cities, could they not add it onto the JNB route instead?

Just seems a very odd routing that I've never fully understood, there must be a reason for it  

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1763 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 7802 times:

Probably because SA already flies JNB-GRU.

User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 7757 times:

BCN-GRU is a denser route than JNB-GRU and they are able to get feed from their *A partner JK at BCN. At JNB they would be in direct competition with SA on the route.

User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9827 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 7715 times:

SQ has a habit of this. Flying SIN-DME-IAH is similar, although not as bad. SIN-ICN-IAH adds 1 mile to the great circle route, but they go after the traffic DME-IAH so that justifies the extra flight time.

I wonder if BCN-GRU traffic is enough to justify flying an additional 20% over SIN-GRU. The one benefit of SIN-GRU is that there is little competition that offers a connection near the great circle route.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlinekiwiandrew From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 8632 posts, RR: 13
Reply 4, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 9 hours ago) and read 7647 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting TCASAlert (Thread starter):
when they could do SIN-JNB-GRU, almost a direct track and one would think higher loads and more connections from JNB?

Could they? What makes you think that South Africa would grant them fifth freedom rights for three flights per week directly competing with what is reputed to be one of SA's most profitable routes? MH have been limited for years to twice weekly for JNB-CPT-EZE.



Moderation in all things ... including moderation ;-)
User currently offlineAngMoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 506 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7480 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
SQ has a habit of this. Flying SIN-DME-IAH is similar, although not as bad. SIN-ICN-IAH adds 1 mile to the great circle route, but they go after the traffic DME-IAH so that justifies the extra flight time.

I wonder if BCN-GRU traffic is enough to justify flying an additional 20% over SIN-GRU. The one benefit of SIN-GRU is that there is little competition that offers a connection near the great circle route.

There is very little traffic going from SIN all the way to GRU just as there is little traffic going from SIN to IAH.

I have flown SIN-DME-IAH once and I was amazed. SIN-DME was >95% full, the vast majority being Russians. In DME, most of the passangers got out and maybe 15% of the passengers or less continued to IAH. I expected an empty DME-IAH flight, but instead it was packed with every single seat occupied (100% load factor), again all Russians and I did not see a single american among the new passengers....


User currently offlineC010T3 From Brazil, joined Jul 2006, 3736 posts, RR: 19
Reply 6, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7427 times:

Quoting kiwiandrew (Reply 4):
Could they? What makes you think that South Africa would grant them fifth freedom rights for three flights per week directly competing with what is reputed to be one of SA's most profitable routes? MH have been limited for years to twice weekly for JNB-CPT-EZE.

That's exactly the problem. South Africa does not allow it. Plain and simple.


User currently offline2travel2know2 From Panama, joined Apr 2010, 2707 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 8 hours ago) and read 7398 times:

If South Africa doesn't want SIN-JNB-GRU, how would they react to SIN-CPT/DUR-GRU instead?
As it was said before JNB-GRU is one of SA stellar routes, most probably there may be a demand between CPT or DUR and Brazil too
GRU via CPT or DUR may work, even if almost all passengers might fly either of the 2 segments and not all the way between SIN and GRU..



I'm not on CM's payroll.
User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7354 times:

If SQ wanted to really be adventurous they would fly SIN to LAD/MPM to GRU. They could fill the flights to LAD/MPM with traffic from China and the LAD/MPM flights with VFR traffic and Brazilians doing business in Angola or Mozambique. In the case of LAD however, I doubt the Angolan government would allow it. They protect TAAG at all costs.

User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 833 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 7294 times:

Quoting usflyer msp (Reply 8):

If I were to go from China to Angola or Mozambique, I would not detour via SIN. I'd take EK.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinecchan From New Zealand, joined May 2003, 1763 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 7073 times:

Quoting Semaex (Reply 9):
If I were to go from China to Angola or Mozambique, I would not detour via SIN. I'd take EK.

SQ would not be very competitive against EK and ET. Luggage allowance is a very important consideration for many Africa bound passengers.


User currently offlineusflyer msp From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2185 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6978 times:

Quoting cchan (Reply 10):
Luggage allowance is a very important consideration for many Africa bound passengers.

That is more of a West African thing, where traders go to China and bring tons of stuff back to sell or emigrants come back to visit bearing tons of gifts. Most of the travellers to MPM and LAD are business people that do not pack nearly as heavy as West Africans. Additionally, SQ specializes in F and C class travel so the baggage allowances really wont matter as much anyway.


User currently offlineCODCAIAH From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 177 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 6963 times:

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
SQ has a habit of this. Flying SIN-DME-IAH is similar, although not as bad. SIN-ICN-IAH adds 1 mile to the great circle route, but they go after the traffic DME-IAH so that justifies the extra flight time.

Huh?

SIN-ICN-IAH,+SIN-DME-IAH">http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SIN-ICN-IAH,+SIN-DME-IAH



CO/IAH-loyalist happily driven into the arms of WN/HOU
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 6850 times:

Quoting CODCAIAH (Reply 12):
Huh

This is what they mean:

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=S...STYLE=best&RANGE-COLOR=&MAP-STYLE=

It's shorter to go via ICN (almost bang on the Great Circle (nonstop) route), but they chose to make the longer flight via DME because it's more viable/more traffic/more profit.

[Edited 2011-11-19 20:39:27]

User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (3 years 1 month 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 6580 times:

Quoting TCASAlert (Thread starter):
Just seems a very odd routing that I've never fully understood, there must be a reason for it

1. Fifth Freedom Traffic (pax) rights
2. Cargo Traffic
3. ETOPS considerations

If there are few SIN-GRU pax, then the route is basically to pick up 5th freedom passengers on BCN-GRU.
ETOPS consideration affects the JNB-GRU sector of they choose to go that way. JNB-GRU would not be a problem with ETOPS and the wind, but GRU-JNB would be!

The stuff that goes SIN-GRU vv, is probably only the stuff below the main deck!
Same with SIN-DME-IAH...

Quoting RoseFlyer (Reply 3):
SQ has a habit of this.

It's no surprise then is it?   

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineBommerJan From UK - England, joined Dec 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5575 times:

I flew SQ BCN-SIN-BCN in August and both flights were full, I saw in the transit que coming from GRU and conituing to SIN when I boarded in BCN, so very little transit traffic, both flights BCN-SIN and SIN BCN were 95% full.

Over Xmas I am booked to fly BCN-GRU-BCN on SQ and when I booked in October most of the flights around Xmas were sold out already.

From a strategy point of view it is obvious: with MXP-JFK coming up for SQ in January within *A SQ has a task of attacking oneworld/skyteam markets. And it seems to work. LIving in BCN I would not consider IB and am very happy to have SQ as an alternative.


User currently offlineBommerJan From UK - England, joined Dec 2005, 54 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5534 times:

sorry, I meant to say "I saw 11 transit passenger in the queue coming from GRU and continuing to SIN when I boarded in BCN." somehow some text was swallowed  

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8663 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (3 years 1 month 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 4486 times:

SQ's strategy has always been to capitalize on 5th freedom markets. JNB-GRU is not a significant market. When you really think about it, SIN is not very well positioned to be a global air market and they know that. The only way SQ can attain growth is by going after 5th freedom markets. They did this in Europe for many years in the past, with lots of tags until the LCCs pretty much took that market away. They've had mixed results in their TATL and TPAC routes. And now they are venturing into the Europe-S.America market.

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...
Terminal 3 At SIN - Why Not SQ & MI Terminal? posted Wed Jul 21 2010 02:39:21 by initious
SQ Confirms SIN-BCN-GRU To Start March 2011 posted Thu Sep 30 2010 02:54:31 by kiwiandrew
SQ Eyes SIN-BCN-GRU posted Sat Dec 5 2009 20:40:12 by C010T3
Why Not MH And SQ To New York Via Syria Or Lebanon posted Sat Jun 14 2003 16:31:51 by Airmale
SIN-AMS-ORD, Not SIN-NRT-ORD On SQ? posted Tue May 21 2002 04:37:57 by Spark
Why Not Stansted? posted Sat Oct 8 2011 03:12:29 by JoeCanuck
Why Not More Long Haul From Orly? posted Mon Dec 20 2010 06:07:13 by britannia25
Why Not A New 767? posted Fri Nov 26 2010 18:51:02 by RG787
SQ Approved To Fly BCN-GRU posted Tue Sep 7 2010 14:02:10 by realsim
IAH And DTW Airport Names-why Not "International"? posted Sun Sep 5 2010 06:56:18 by CIDflyer