Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SQ / EK / QR / 380 / 787 And ORD  
User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 423 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4935 times:

Why not the following:

SQ: ORD-FRA-SIN. Compliments UA/LH to FRA and adds a tag to SIN (ORD-HKG-SIN on UA woiuld be impaced). Why not nonstop? High yielding route, unlike AMS, and Start code share, seems like a no brainer, at expense of JFK-FRA-SIN.

EK: ORD-DXB? "Come'one Man," SEA and DFW with nonstop to DXB before ORD? Is the Chi-town political machine greasing EY?

QR: ORD-DOH? See above regarding EK.

380: I still think KE (Sky Team) will be the first 380 at ORD. LH/UA are dead set on frequency, can't blame them, the 3x 744 and 1x 777 would equate to a 380 on the route. Can ORD handle 380?

787: This forum talks about ORD as a big hub, but in between to certain cities. Based on this logiand discussions on this forum: ORD-NGO/KIX/TPE/MNL/BHX/CAI/EZE/GIG/LIM/SCL/OSL/BKK/TLV//BBI(when it opens) will all be logical flights to ORD. Any predictions on this? I woiuld expect JL/NH to start ORD-KIX or NGO on 787 in the next year, other than that, BBI (Berlin is the only other no brainer) I can see from ORD. I think DXB is a no brainer, but noboy wants to compete with EY on ORD-AUH (what a shame).

28 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3333 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 4916 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
SQ: ORD-FRA-SIN. Compliments UA/LH to FRA and adds a tag to SIN (ORD-HKG-SIN on UA woiuld be impaced). Why not nonstop? High yielding route, unlike AMS, and Start code share, seems like a no brainer, at expense of JFK-FRA-SIN.

UA/LH have ORD-FRA pretty well covered already, there are 4-5 flts a day.


User currently offlineseabosdca From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 5110 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4825 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
SQ: ORD-FRA-SIN.

As already pointed out, not necessary. People can already do ORD-FRA-SIN or ORD-HKG-SIN on Star.

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
Why not nonstop?

Because only L.A. and NYC can make a route like that work. ORD is a nice business market but it can't compare with those two. Remember that ULH costs are staggeringly high.

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
EK: ORD-DXB? "Come'one Man," SEA and DFW with nonstop to DXB before ORD? Is the Chi-town political machine greasing EY?

ORD will happen eventually, but there is competition, whereas for now EK can have SEA and DFW to itself. And DFW is probably just as high-yielding a market as ORD.

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
380: I still think KE (Sky Team) will be the first 380 at ORD.

I bet a 77W is enough for KE. If CX buys the A380 it will probably send one to ORD. Other than that, your best hope is LH upgauging their busiest frequency.

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
787:

Who knows what service airlines may start to exotic places? But I think your best bet for the 787 in the near term is existing Middle East and Asia destinations on UA.



Most gorgeous aircraft: Tu-204-300, 757-200, A330-200, 777-200LR, 787-8
User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4776 times:

why not? UA and LH revenue share on every single flight ORD-FRA (and USA-Europe, for that matter). SQ is not part of that revenue share, so this would be competition. competition that neither UA nor LH would want. For that matter - have you ever noticed that UA and SQ dont do any code share? There's a reason. Also, another reason is that a lot of people want to fly to and from NYC. moving this flight to ORD would not help that.

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
SQ: ORD-FRA-SIN. Compliments UA/LH to FRA and adds a tag to SIN (ORD-HKG-SIN on UA woiuld be impaced). Why not nonstop? High yielding route, unlike AMS, and Start code share, seems like a no brainer, at expense of JFK-FRA-SIN.


User currently offlineFWAERJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 3641 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4740 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
Is the Chi-town political machine greasing EY?

Possibly. The Chicago Department of Aviation has a joint-venture agreement with AUH.



I don't work for FWA, their tenants, or their ad agency. But I still love FWA.
User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2091 posts, RR: 15
Reply 5, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4611 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
EK: ORD-DXB? "Come'one Man," SEA and DFW with nonstop to DXB before ORD? Is the Chi-town political machine greasing EY?

Well, EK is actually pulling the second daily flights from IAH and LAX and sending those aircraft to DFW and SEA, respectively. Not sure about SEA, but I know that in the case of DFW, many of the PAX aboard the IAH flights were DFW-originating traffic, and there is definitely a market EK can tap into in North Texas.

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
EZE/GIG/LIM/SCL

Not really an immediate need for any of these nonstop from ORD. EZE has been tried many times and failed. Don't really see a huge market for GIG. SCL needs to be linked with IAH first. LIM - possibly.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlinechicawgo From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4083 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
Also, another reason is that a lot of people want to fly to and from NYC. moving this flight to ORD would not help that.

Seriously? How about we just move all current direct flights to ORD to NYC instead? Then just run a few hundred NYC-ORD flights per day on wide-bodies. We'll be able to accommodate Chicago passengers while catering the airlines business to the fact that many people want to fly "to and from NYC."

In fact, this probably should be done for every airport in the country! All connections through NYC!


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1564 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4025 times:

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 6):
Seriously? How about we just move all current direct flights to ORD to NYC instead? Then just run a few hundred NYC-ORD flights per day on wide-bodies. We'll be able to accommodate Chicago passengers while catering the airlines business to the fact that many people want to fly "to and from NYC."

In fact, this probably should be done for every airport in the country! All connections through NYC!
JasonCRH isn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any intercontinental service at ORD - on the contrary, it clearly supports a lot of it. However, the NYC-SIN market is larger and higher yielding than the CHI-SIN market, which is why SQ flies both non-stop SIN-EWR (for the high-end market) and one-stop SIN-FRA-JFK (to accommodate Y travelers) while not serving ORD at all. His point was that moving SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD as the OP suggests would not only add unnecessary competition against UA/LH on ORD-FRA, but also leave a new void in seats for the NYC-SIN market instead.


User currently offlinechicawgo From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3880 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 7):
JasonCRH isn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any intercontinental service at ORD - on the contrary, it clearly supports a lot of it. However, the NYC-SIN market is larger and higher yielding than the CHI-SIN market, which is why SQ flies both non-stop SIN-EWR (for the high-end market) and one-stop SIN-FRA-JFK (to accommodate Y travelers) while not serving ORD at all. His point was that moving SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD as the OP suggests would not only add unnecessary competition against UA/LH on ORD-FRA, but also leave a new void in seats for the NYC-SIN market instead.

I agree with everything else JasonCRH said but the part I quoted. You're making a lot of assumptions into what he was suggesting... To me (and I just read it many times again) it seems more like a blanket statement that could be said about pretty much ANY route. The fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is irrelevant. And my point was that, by that logic, there should be no flights to anywhere else but NYC.


User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3820 times:

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 8):
I agree with everything else JasonCRH said but the part I quoted. You're making a lot of assumptions into what he was suggesting... To me (and I just read it many times again) it seems more like a blanket statement that could be said about pretty much ANY route. The fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is irrelevant. And my point was that, by that logic, there should be no flights to anywhere else but NYC.

Just do math. EWR-SIN nonstop is only daily, and only 100 seats. LAX-SIN is sometimes down to 5x weekly. If we assume ORD pax # is slightly smaller than LAX, that dictates anywhere 3x-4x weekly - not a good way to operate a business-oriented flight. You can't down-gauge the A345 since the alternative (77L) is same size, so the only thing you could do is down-frequency.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1564 posts, RR: 9
Reply 10, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3820 times:

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 8):

I agree with everything else JasonCRH said but the part I quoted. You're making a lot of assumptions into what he was suggesting... To me (and I just read it many times again) it seems more like a blanket statement that could be said about pretty much ANY route. The fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is irrelevant. And my point was that, by that logic, there should be no flights to anywhere else but NYC.

He can clear it up on his own, but I don't think I'm making a lot of assumptions. He was replying directly to the OP's suggestion that SIN-FRA-ORD be added at the expense of SIN-FRA-JFK. If you're planning to take a flight away from JFK and give it to ORD, the fact that more people go to NYC is absolutely relevant since that change would result in SQ sending more seats to a market with less demand.


User currently offlinechicawgo From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3760 times:

Quoting steex (Reply 10):
He can clear it up on his own, but I don't think I'm making a lot of assumptions. He was replying directly to the OP's suggestion that SIN-FRA-ORD be added at the expense of SIN-FRA-JFK. If you're planning to take a flight away from JFK and give it to ORD, the fact that more people go to NYC is absolutely relevant since that change would result in SQ sending more seats to a market with less demand.

I completely understand what you're saying. However, my point is that (I'll try and explain more clearly) the fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is NOT what's relevant. What IS relevant is whether Chicago has enough demand to make the route profitable. Whether it does or not I don't know and, to be honest, I don't really care. My ONLY point was that the fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is not a valid reason. Otherwise, you could make an argument (as I did) that all cities should have flights only to NYC and then connect elsewhere. What's important is whether or not any individual city has the demand to make a route profitable.

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 9):
Just do math. EWR-SIN nonstop is only daily, and only 100 seats. LAX-SIN is sometimes down to 5x weekly. If we assume ORD pax # is slightly smaller than LAX, that dictates anywhere 3x-4x weekly - not a good way to operate a business-oriented flight. You can't down-gauge the A345 since the alternative (77L) is same size, so the only thing you could do is down-frequency.

Not sure what this has to do with my text that you quoted. As I stated above, I'm NOT arguing that the OP's change from JFK to ORD is a good idea. I was only discussing a reason given in a reply.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1564 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3729 times:

[quote=chicawgo,reply=11]

But you're creating a straw man. The only thing the reply in question was covering were reasons not to move SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD. JasonCRH did not address any other points, and his comment regarding more people wanting to go to NYC than Chicago was made solely relative to that specific service, not as a general statement about all flights.


User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 13, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3721 times:

Steex is completely correct in interpreting what I said.

Chicawgo you misinterpreted what I said.

Chicago has a large and vibrant intercontinenal market. I do not advocate everything go through NYC.
The current SIN-FRA-JFK flight serves passengers who primarily have a destination of NYC. The fact that they have served the route for a long time (approaching 20 years) and have shown a renewed commitment to doing so with the 380 (I think?) shows that there is demand for NYC as a destination. Moving this exact flight to Chicago would not allow them to serve this demand, which is obviously something that is still strong.

Could SQ serve Chicago? Perhaps,as there is a lot of demand there. But you dont discontinue a service that's ostensibly profitable and in demand undless you can find something better (profit/ yield/ demand) to replace it with. It's not clear, in this case, whether the Chicago market would be that.

You went beyond what I was expressing. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 8):
Quoting steex (Reply 7):
JasonCRH isn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any intercontinental service at ORD - on the contrary, it clearly supports a lot of it. However, the NYC-SIN market is larger and higher yielding than the CHI-SIN market, which is why SQ flies both non-stop SIN-EWR (for the high-end market) and one-stop SIN-FRA-JFK (to accommodate Y travelers) while not serving ORD at all. His point was that moving SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD as the OP suggests would not only add unnecessary competition against UA/LH on ORD-FRA, but also leave a new void in seats for the NYC-SIN market instead.


I agree with everything else JasonCRH said but the part I quoted. You're making a lot of assumptions into what he was suggesting... To me (and I just read it many times again) it seems more like a blanket statement that could be said about pretty much ANY route. The fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is irrelevant. And my point was that, by that logic, there should be no flights to anywhere else but NYC.
Quoting chicawgo (Reply 8):
Quoting steex (Reply 7):
JasonCRH isn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any intercontinental service at ORD - on the contrary, it clearly supports a lot of it. However, the NYC-SIN market is larger and higher yielding than the CHI-SIN market, which is why SQ flies both non-stop SIN-EWR (for the high-end market) and one-stop SIN-FRA-JFK (to accommodate Y travelers) while not serving ORD at all. His point was that moving SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD as the OP suggests would not only add unnecessary competition against UA/LH on ORD-FRA, but also leave a new void in seats for the NYC-SIN market instead.


I agree with everything else JasonCRH said but the part I quoted. You're making a lot of assumptions into what he was suggesting... To me (and I just read it many times again) it seems more like a blanket statement that could be said about pretty much ANY route. The fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is irrelevant. And my point was that, by that logic, there should be no flights to anywhere else but NYC.
Quoting chicawgo (Reply 8):
Quoting steex (Reply 7):
JasonCRH isn't suggesting that there shouldn't be any intercontinental service at ORD - on the contrary, it clearly supports a lot of it. However, the NYC-SIN market is larger and higher yielding than the CHI-SIN market, which is why SQ flies both non-stop SIN-EWR (for the high-end market) and one-stop SIN-FRA-JFK (to accommodate Y travelers) while not serving ORD at all. His point was that moving SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD as the OP suggests would not only add unnecessary competition against UA/LH on ORD-FRA, but also leave a new void in seats for the NYC-SIN market instead.


I agree with everything else JasonCRH said but the part I quoted. You're making a lot of assumptions into what he was suggesting... To me (and I just read it many times again) it seems more like a blanket statement that could be said about pretty much ANY route. The fact that more people go to NYC than Chicago is irrelevant. And my point was that, by that logic, there should be no flights to anywhere else but NYC.


User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2091 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3652 times:

Quoting mogandoCI (Reply 9):
Just do math. EWR-SIN nonstop is only daily, and only 100 seats. LAX-SIN is sometimes down to 5x weekly. If we assume ORD pax # is slightly smaller than LAX, that dictates anywhere 3x-4x weekly - not a good way to operate a business-oriented flight. You can't down-gauge the A345 since the alternative (77L) is same size, so the only thing you could do is down-frequency.

I'm not really following how this is relevant....are you replying to a post or are you just assessing the potential for SQ to fly nonstop to ORD? Because if it is the latter, I don't think anyone suggested that a nonstop ULH between ORD and SIN is currently viable.

Quoting JasonCRH (Reply 13):
The current SIN-FRA-JFK flight serves passengers who primarily have a destination of NYC. The fact that they have served the route for a long time (approaching 20 years) and have shown a renewed commitment to doing so with the 380 (I think?) shows that there is demand for NYC as a destination.

Just out of curiousity, how many of those passengers are comprised of SIN-originating and JFK-terminating (and vice versa) O&D traffic on a percentage scale? I'm just wondering because there is a debate going on over on the SQ to IAH thread about what percentage of the traffic is IAH-SIN vs. IAH-DME and DME-SIN. There seems to be contrasting figures in that IAH-DME is carrying high yielding F and J oil traffic and DME-SIN is carrying lower-yield VFR passengers.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlinemogandoCI From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3634 times:

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 14):
I'm not really following how this is relevant....are you replying to a post or are you just assessing the potential for SQ to fly nonstop to ORD?

Umm... because the thread started asked "why not nonstop?" By asking "why not" he's implying that he believes it's viable but someone leaving money on the table.


User currently offlinechicawgo From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3596 times:

I apologize that I am still having trouble explaining my point.

Quoting JasonCRH (Reply 13):
Chicawgo you misinterpreted what I said.

JasonCRH, you said the following

Quoting JasonCRH (Reply 3):
Also, another reason is that a lot of people want to fly to and from NYC. moving this flight to ORD would not help that.

Those are your exact words. I now 100% understand that you were referring to the SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD issue. That's fine. What I am saying is that the comparison is irrelevant in THIS specific case, and in EVERY case. It doesn't matter that more people go to NYC than CHI. That is and will probably always be the case!! For that matter, more people go to CHI than Memphis. And more people go to Memphis than Toledo. It doesn't matter! What matters in this case is if having a SIN-FRA-ORD would be profitable. In fact, I agree that switching the flight probably would not be a good idea if the flight to JFK is performing well. No reason to fix what ain't broke.

But the fact that more people go to NYC than CHI is never a reason to adjust flights in any situation including the one you were referring to. If we were to believe this is a valid reason, then how do you explain SQ having flights to any other city in the US? NYC will always have the most people wanting to go there. But flights to other cities can work as well. That's all that I'm saying and that's all I've said.


User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 17, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3414 times:

....and what I said was in the context of explaining why I dont think they would switch SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD. What I wrote is perfectly okay in its context.

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 16):
Those are your exact words. I now 100% understand that you were referring to the SIN-FRA-JFK to SIN-FRA-ORD issue. That's fine. What I am saying is that the comparison is irrelevant in THIS specific case, and in EVERY case. It doesn't matter that more people go to NYC than CHI. That is and will probably always be the case!! For that matter, more people go to CHI than Memphis. And more people go to Memphis than Toledo. It doesn't matter! What matters in this case is if having a SIN-FRA-ORD would be profitable. In fact, I agree that switching the flight probably would not be a good idea if the flight to JFK is performing well. No reason to fix what ain't broke.

But the fact that more people go to NYC than CHI is never a reason to adjust flights in any situation including the one you were referring to. If we were to believe this is a valid reason, then how do you explain SQ having flights to any other city in the US? NYC will always have the most people wanting to go there. But flights to other cities can work as well. That's all that I'm saying and that's all I've said.


User currently offlinenycdave From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 546 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 3376 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
seems like a no brainer, at expense of JFK-FRA-SIN.

NYC and SIN are both big financial hubs, and there's a large amount of high-value traffic between the two -- there's a reason why SQ operates its only all-business 345 between EWR and SIN. Not only that, but FRA is the financial hub of continental Europe. Having worked at an i-bank, I know there's no small number of pax who choose SQ between NYC and FRA because of the service quality (heck, I was with a GERMAN bank, with an LH contract, and still everyone I knew took SQ's JFK-FRA when it fit their schedule).

In short, the business is there, easily, for the NYC route. ORD might work, but they'd have to do a lot of research into whether that market can sustain enough traffic at a high enough price to be profitable, keeping in mind that most non-business or luxury travelers would probably be more than content to take a cheaper flight connecting at LAX. Are there enough business pax traveling to SIN who are originating in the Chicagoland area to sustain what would be a VERY long, expensive route? If not, it's much more efficient to route the passengers through LAX or NYC.

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 6):
Seriously? How about we just move all current direct flights to ORD to NYC instead? Then just run a few hundred NYC-ORD flights per day on wide-bodies. We'll be able to accommodate Chicago passengers while catering the airlines business to the fact that many people want to fly "to and from NYC."

In fact, this probably should be done for every airport in the country! All connections through NYC!

Ahhhhh, here's where we're coming from. This wasn't some rational "what would be the best, most profitable routings for certain airlines and aircraft", this was "I'M IN CHICAGO AND I'M JEALOUS THAT NYC IS A BIGGER CITY WITH ACCORDINGLY MORE INTERNATIONAL CONNECTIONS!!! ARGGGH!!!" That makes a big difference.

I love Chicago (in fact, its the only city in the US I'd live in besides NYC). A *lot*. Air traffic-wise, there's a reason ORD is huge -- it's a strategic location in a very big city with a substantial corporate HQ presence.

HOWEVER -- it is a smaller city population-wise than LA or NYC. *significantly* smaller than NYC, for that matter. It is a corporate hub, and a hub for commodities trading, but neither its businesses or the Chicago Merc have the same sort of strong ties that businesses in LA have with east asia, or NYC's financial market has with SIN. Also, ORD is further from SIN than LAX, and less than 300nm closer than NYC.

DXB and DOH have the same issue. I'm quite sure that if an when the market looks profitable, an airline will run that service, and if it IS a good route, it will continue and maybe even have multiple services. Until then... Jeez. Calm. Down.


User currently offlinesteex From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 1564 posts, RR: 9
Reply 19, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3266 times:

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 16):
It doesn't matter! What matters in this case is if having a SIN-FRA-ORD would be profitable.

This is where you are incorrect. If you're asking "should I fly a plane to New York or Chicago?" as continuation of SIN-FRA, which is exactly what you're asking if you decide between SIN-FRA-JFK and SIN-FRA-ORD, whether or not SIN-FRA-ORD would be profitable is NOT what matters. What matters is whether or not SIN-FRA-ORD would be MORE profitable than SIN-FRA-JFK. If JFK is a larger market with higher yield than ORD for this segment, then when picking between the two, you should serve JFK. The question at hand is about having one plane and having to choose one route to fly it on (based on the OP's suggestion that JFK could be canceled in favor of ORD), not whether or not both markets could each justify service given an unlimited number of resources.

But you then immediately acknowledge...

Quoting chicawgo (Reply 16):
In fact, I agree that switching the flight probably would not be a good idea if the flight to JFK is performing well. No reason to fix what ain't broke.

...which is exactly what I just explained above, and is all we have been saying in the first place. At no point were any of us arguing the other side of whatever other point you're making. Nobody suggested that only JFK should be served, the point was never that ORD shouldn't be served because more people fly to JFK. It was simply a matter that the allocation of a single resource should be to the largest/best market, and you're only considering a single resource (aircraft) if you're choosing between ORD and JFK for the FRA tag.


User currently offlinechicawgo From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 52 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

Quoting nycdave (Reply 18):
this was "I'M IN CHICAGO AND I'M JEALOUS THAT NYC IS A BIGGER CITY WITH ACCORDINGLY MORE INTERNATIONAL CONNECTIONS!!! ARGGGH!!!"

Thank you nycdave. I've been trying to figure out for years what the chip on my shoulder has been and you pinpointed it. I'm now getting help. Thank you!

In any event, thank you all for your responses. I agree with all of you (except for select nycdave quotes) and I'm not even sure what is being argued anymore. I didn't mean to start a big argument. For any misunderstandings I apologize.

And nycdave: I love NY and am there 5-6 times a year. I know that it is much bigger than Chicago and will always have many more international connections. And that doesn't bother me at all. If it did, I would move there (my company has asked me to move there since my client is there). Interestingly, it seems that very often New Yorkers are quick to accuse Chicagoans of being jealous of New York. My view is perfectly summed up in this quote by Wilco's Jeff Tweedy: "[Chicago] never felt the inferiority complex that outsiders spend so much time musing about."


User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 423 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

If SQ shared revenue with UA/LH, ORD-FRA-SIN would compliment the summer 1x744 on UA, 1x777 on UA, 1x744 on LH, and 1 time 343 on LH. Without AA, this route could sustain 5x Star flights per day. This route is about frequency, but at the 744 / 777 / 340 level, not 767 level. A 380 will probably be on this some day (if ORD is ready, they say they are, but it's Chicago, lots of wind).

User currently offlineIrishAyes From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2091 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 2919 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 21):
If SQ shared revenue with UA/LH, ORD-FRA-SIN would compliment the summer 1x744 on UA, 1x777 on UA, 1x744 on LH, and 1 time 343 on LH. Without AA, this route could sustain 5x Star flights per day. This route is about frequency, but at the 744 / 777 / 340 level, not 767 level. A 380 will probably be on this some day (if ORD is ready, they say they are, but it's Chicago, lots of wind).

Why split revenue three ways between two airlines when it can be done on two? Too many players on this route decreases the slice of the pie that each gets to walk away with.

LH/UA have hubs at both ends at Frankfurt and Chicago, respectively. What immediate need/void can SQ fill that the others can't, other than provide an alternative product (as nice as that would be)? As is, UA and LH provide a very nice premium offering on their First and Business class cabins between Chicago and Frankfurt.

The SIN-FRA-NYC flight on SQ has been around for a LONG time, longer than the existence of Star Alliance, JBA's etc. With the loyalty build-up they have, there are merits to keep SQ on the route, but moving it (or starting something similar) at Chicago doesn't really make any sense on paper given the market conditions.



next flights: msp-phx-slc, msp-mdw, ord-sju, sju-dfw-ord, msp-dfw, dfw-phl, phl-msp, jfk-icn, icn-hkg-bkk-cdg
User currently offlineJasonCRH From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 283 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 8 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

The UA/LH revenue share is a far-reaching agreement that covers EVERY SINGLE transatlantic route operated by the two companies. It's not just limited to ORD-FRA.

With the extensive nature of the relationship in mind, there's NO WAY that either one would ever want SQ to come into the fold. each of them sees SQ as a major competitor in their respective markets to Asia, and they wouldnt want to encourage them.

If United and Lufthansa saw a need for a 5th daily flight ORD-FRA, then one of them would simply toss another plane on the route. Keep in mind that this is a decision that UA and LH make, not some governing Star body. It's a decision by the operating carriers/ participants in the revenue share agreemetn.

Just because airlines are in an alliance doesnt mean that they all have the same relationship. While they're all close, some are closer, and some are closer to the exclusion of others.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 21):

If SQ shared revenue with UA/LH, ORD-FRA-SIN would compliment the summer 1x744 on UA, 1x777 on UA, 1x744 on LH, and 1 time 343 on LH. Without AA, this route could sustain 5x Star flights per day. This route is about frequency, but at the 744 / 777 / 340 level, not 767 level. A 380 will probably be on this some day (if ORD is ready, they say they are, but it's Chicago, lots of wind).


User currently offlinecarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2910 posts, RR: 3
Reply 24, posted (2 years 4 months 1 week 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2739 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Thread starter):
I woiuld expect JL/NH to start ORD-KIX or NGO on 787 in the next year

Don't count on it. Sadly, the days when JL & NH operated long-haul flight from those cities are probably history. Both carriers operate only a handful of int'l routes from those cities. The direction theya re going is eerything will be from Tokyo (HND or NRT).
Don't count on the 787 in ORD with either JL or NH. The 77W is the best aircraft on that route unless NH or JL want to increase ORD flying to double daily, which could be a possibility in the future. That will large dependent on our friends at Boeing to get their delivery of 787 up to speed.


25 hal9213 : It will happen. But, EK really has a, eeeeh, "problem" right now: They are expanding and upgauging all sorts of routes currently, and you just cant d
26 Cubsrule : I wonder whether ORD-MUC/ZRH/BER/DUS-SIN might have more promise; all of the intermediate stops are decent-sized markets in their own right (albeit e
27 IrishAyes : Well, I think you could take a step back even further and question whether even this approach is necessary. Truthfully, I don't think there is a gap
28 infinit : IIHC SQ used to fly to ORD until 2003/2004 or so. This route was the victim suffered post-911 and then SARS. They called it quits after that. Not sure
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...
SQ And ORD: posted Mon Apr 27 2009 16:16:15 by Nomorerjs
Same Day Flts On 787 And 380 posted Wed Jul 18 2007 06:17:19 by Qantas787
EK/QR And Cyclone Gonu posted Wed Jun 6 2007 22:06:17 by 2travel2know
AA And 787 And 380 posted Fri Nov 11 2005 16:22:27 by FlyMeToTheMoon
SK And SQ Starting 2xweekly 744F Flights CPH-ORD posted Sat Oct 1 2005 16:54:37 by Avianca
EK On The 772LR And 787 posted Sat Mar 26 2005 17:27:54 by N60659
What Forms EK Market From SFO And LAX? posted Wed Nov 30 2011 02:34:19 by leftyboarder
Clarification About Wings On 787-8, -9, And -10? posted Fri Nov 18 2011 09:51:34 by tsugambler
UA-CO To Use UAX Flights Between BWI And ORD? posted Thu Dec 16 2010 02:49:46 by 777fan
Gallois Speaks On The 380, 350 And More posted Sun Dec 12 2010 09:03:16 by JoeCanuck