Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Singapore Air US Flights Strategy Post A345?  
User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 357 posts, RR: 14
Posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 15812 times:

I had the pleasure of flying both the SIN-LAX vv and SIN-EWR vv non stops of Singapore Airlines many times.

Sorry to see these SQ flights will stop, about three weeks from now. SQ Publishes A345 SIN-LAX/EWR Nonstop End Dates (by LAXintl Dec 20 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Quote:
SIN-LAX comes to an end on October 21, 2013, while SIN-EWR ends November 24, 2013.
Additionally SQ seems to be reducing frequency to EWR to 4x weekly (Mon/Tue/Thu/Sat) as well.

This drops SQ's flights to the US to four destinations and reduces the number of daily flights from 7 to 5. LAX and JFK to just one daily A380. SIN-NRT-LAX. JFK-FRA-SIN. SIN-SFO is twice daily, one via ICN and one via HKG. SIN-IAH is once daily. IAH-DME-SIN. IAH and SFO flights are all on 77Ws.

I am starting this thread to explore what are some possible options for SQ post the withdrawal of the non-stops. Will SQ revive the old SIN-TPE-LAX or SIN-AMS-ORD routes? What about EWR? Are they content leaving an A380 parked the whole day on the tarmac of JFK?

What could be some alternate routes and US destinations they could or should consider? Especially in the light of growth by EK and QR (which will benefit more with the oneworld membership). Will they not need 5th freedom, for these one-stop flights?

In India, and the sub-continent, SQ is already feeling the pinch of competition from the Middle East Big 4 (MEB4) carriers EK, EY, QR and TK on the US routes, and the sub-continent does give significant traffic to the MEB4. Due to geography, Sub-continent ~ Europe is out of the question for SQ, just as Asia-Pac and Australia is for the MEB4.

Even trans-Pacific routes, SQ is falling behind CX in destinations to the US. What should be its strategy?

Thanks in advance.


I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
58 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2065 posts, RR: 9
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 weeks 1 day ago) and read 15309 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Thread starter):
Even trans-Pacific routes, SQ is falling behind CX in destinations to the US. What should be its strategy?

The problem there is that most pax on the USA-HKG CX planes are typically going to mainland China, which is not very convenient if your transit point is Singapore. So in this case, SQ is not well positioned geographically.

I think with the continued growth of Indonesia and ASEAN in general, SQ should be able to continue to benefit from US - Southeast Asia flights. Most people don't know this, but ASEAN as a whole is the world's third largest Emerging Market, behind China and India, and ahead of Brazil and Russia (as measured by GDP). Whether SQ can convert these economic stats into filled seats is another question.

I would definitely like to see SQ open up more US stations, but the question would remain: Where? ORD would seem like an ideal candidate. What about BOS? SEA? I have no clue on pax numbers so who knows.

As for the EWR flight, they will definitely lose on some of the connectivity from UA. But those flights were usually half full. Having the all J upper deck A388 on SIN-FRA-JFK should fix this.

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-LAX | VX LAX-FLL | B6 FLL-BOG-FLL | VX FLL-LAX | VA LAX-SYD | VA SYD-PER-SYD
User currently offlineadamh8297 From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 962 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 15108 times:

Quoting Coal (Reply 1):
What about BOS? SEA?

BOS - Probably not since the codeshares with VS and VX are still in place and EK and TK arrive in 2014. Also, Subcontinent traffic through SIN doesn't work for BOS the way it does for LAX and SFO.

SEA - If DL did not start SEA-HKG then SQ probably could have tried SEA-HKG-SIN.

Quoting BLRAviation (Thread starter):
What should be its strategy?

SIN is an excellent hub and airport for Southeast Asia and the Subcontinent (depending on your departure point) but geography doesn't make it the greatest place to take feed from the US.

3 options

1)Get closer with B6, VX, AS, and possibly US if the merger fails.

2) Buddy up with TK

3) The only other option would be to take advantage of any freedoms they have and serve USA-Europe-SIN especially if they were to lose the VS codeshare. No one's mentioned something such as MIA-LHR-SIN yet.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 14928 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Thread starter):
What should be its strategy?

The strategy will be the same they have always employed. Stay strong on where their maket is (West Coast), and continue to rely on 5th freedom routes to make money. Having said that I fully expect the non-stops to return with A359, especially LAX, and I wouldn't discard an improved A380 on the route within a few years time.

Here's my bold prediction/wishful thinking: Not only will the SIN-LAX and SIN-NYC return with A359 but they will also add SIN-SFO in order to offer a one-stop option to the subcontinent. And it wouldn't shock me to see an A380 on SIN-SFO. SIN-SFO is only 100nm longer than DXB-LAX.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12065 posts, RR: 34
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14845 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 3):
Not only will the SIN-LAX and SIN-NYC return with A359

> SIN-LAX is 7629nm
> SIN-NYC is 8288nm

This can only be flown with the theoretical A350-900R and we don't know yet if Airbus will make this one.



Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineplaneguy727 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1250 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14814 times:

I, too, have taken the n/s flights. When I look at the SQ potential, they are only removing 100 C/J seats from each city-pair. SQ tends to focus on quality and strength of market rather than just scattering a bunch of flights all over a country and hoping they work. The easy answer is to increase feed to/from *A partners, though this is where the quality consideration can be interesting.

If you want to go SIN-EWR you have the option to go via FRA with the FRA-EWR service on LH. For LAX you have many options, including their own one-stop service. The time differential on the LAX one-stop is not all that great.

Though I've not looked at the pdew numbers for any US cities to SIN, I doubt there are many other cities that fit with the SQ approach.

PG727



I want to live in an old and converted 727...
User currently offlineord2010 From United States of America, joined Sep 2013, 105 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 14796 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Thread starter):
I am starting this thread to explore what are some possible options for SQ post the withdrawal of the non-stops. Will SQ revive the old SIN-TPE-LAX or SIN-AMS-ORD routes? What about EWR? Are they content leaving an A380 parked the whole day on the tarmac of JFK?

I could see the ORD making a comeback, especially if it connects via AMS which has a good amount of traffic into ORD that could be used especially if they team up with UA to replace one of their daily AMS flights or codeshare or them to provide a good feed, maybe even BRU which just became a 777 flight to ORD and is a star hub and only has a once daily to ORD while AMS has more than 3 daily's on 3 carriers. I think the flight could do great, UA does well serving SIN and ICN one stop year round.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 12748 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
This can only be flown with the theoretical A350-900R and we don't know yet if Airbus will make this one.

In a normal configuration, yes, but I don't expect them to fly these ULH routes with a normal configuration. In a low density config, the A359 should be able to fly SIN-NYC. The problem with the A345 was not, selling the 100 J seats. The problem was making money on the route. With the A359 being 20+% cheaper to operate compared with the A345, I think SQ would make money on the route even with a very low density config. This is why I expect these non-stops to return.

Quoting planeguy727 (Reply 5):
If you want to go SIN-EWR you have the option to go via FRA with the FRA-EWR service on LH. For LAX you have many options, including their own one-stop service. The time differential on the LAX one-stop is not all that great.

If you're not flying between the 2 cities but just connecting in one of them, then your trip becomes a 2-stop route at a minimum instead of a 1-stop, and SQ will lose to every other airline that can get you there with only 1 stop. That is why the non-stop routes from LAX and EWR are important.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25719 posts, RR: 50
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 12123 times:

Per LA sales office "stay tuned". I suppose the previously long running TPE flight could be back.

Quoting ord2010 (Reply 6):
especially if they team up with UA

SQ does not do much with UA and barely codeshares. Their US partners are US, VX along with a JFK agreement with B6.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinetmoney From Myanmar, joined Nov 2011, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11718 times:

Quoting Coal (Reply 1):
Most people don't know this, but ASEAN as a whole is the world's third largest Emerging Market

Totally! Even my country that's been shut out for a good half a century, you won't believe how much traffic RGN is going through these days! SQ is smart to start their mainline 772s once daily since last year rather than leave it to MI. But to get back on track, SEAsia-US traffic is SQ's strength atm and they should take advantage of it to the max. Especially when GA has no US destinations yet and TG/MH scaling back their US flights.

But what's also happening is China based carriers, in addition to the ME4, with their products (and safety) getting way better are also stealing SEAsia-US traffic from SQ with their cheaper fares (Eva, China Airlines, China Souther/Eastern, Air China). And transiting at NRT is so cliché!! (The 2nd reason I have been flying IAH-DME-SIN-RGN; 1st reason being hating the whale-jet and wayy shorter immigration lines.)

Maybe SQ shouldn't do away with their non-stop US flights. But get some 77Ls and ... well, you know the rest. 


User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8018 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 11498 times:

I do think that SQ--along with EK and QR--may buy the A350XWB-900R to eliminate carrying capacity restrictions on very long routes. That may result in SQ reviving the LAX-SIN and EWR-SIN route with an all-J (Business class) seating arrangement on the A359XWB-900R, but with much lower fuel burn than the A340-500.

User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 508 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 11126 times:

I would like to see ORD again, but AMS is such a low-yielding route.

ORD-SIN direct is 9,357 miles direct (but not an option)
ORD-KIX-SIN is 9,547 miles (add KIX back to ORD)
ORD-HKG-SIN is 9,381 miles (has premium traffic, but UA and CX on route)
ORD-OSL-SIN is 10,290 miles (would connect Star cities)
ORD-AMS-SIN is10,655 miles (AMS is low-yielding, longer than OSL or Asia)

Proposed 77W:
SIN: 10:00 am
HKG: 1:45 pm
HKG: 3:45 pm
ORD: 5:35 pm

ORD: 12:10 am
HKG: 5:00 am +1
HKG: 7:00 am
SIN: 10:40 am

Schedule would compliment existing ORD-HKG service, be similar with most of CX flights (other than ORD), and provide a direct link to SIN.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12158 posts, RR: 51
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 10704 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 4):
> SIN-LAX is 7629nm
> SIN-NYC is 8288nm

This can only be flown with the theoretical A350-900R and we don't know yet if Airbus will make this one.
Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
In a normal configuration, yes, but I don't expect them to fly these ULH routes with a normal configuration. In a low density config, the A359 should be able to fly SIN-NYC. The problem with the A345 was not, selling the 100 J seats. The problem was making money on the route. With the A359 being 20+% cheaper to operate compared with the A345, I think SQ would make money on the route even with a very low density config. This is why I expect these non-stops to return.

They could buy some B-77Ls which can fly these ULH routes, plus more cargo than the A-345. The B-77L can take up to 305 seats, IIRC. But in a SQ seating, they may only put 150-200 J seats on it. That is a lot more revenue potential than the 100 J seats they put on the A-345, plus cargo.


User currently offlineTWA772LR From United States of America, joined Nov 2011, 2183 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9988 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 12):
They could buy some B-77Ls which can fly these ULH routes, plus more cargo than the A-345. The B-77L can take up to 305 seats, IIRC. But in a SQ seating, they may only put 150-200 J seats on it. That is a lot more revenue potential than the 100 J seats they put on the A-345, plus cargo.

I'm still baffled they didn't by the 77L, along with QF...
Anyone know why SQ got the A345 vs. the 77L?



Go coogs! \n//
User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9964 times:

Quoting ord2010 (Reply 6):
I could see the ORD making a comeback, especially if it connects via AMS which has a good amount of traffic into ORD that could be used especially if they team up with UA to replace one of their daily AMS flights or codeshare or them to provide a good feed, maybe even BRU which just became a 777 flight to ORD and is a star hub and only has a once daily to ORD while AMS has more than 3 daily's on 3 carriers. I think the flight could do great, UA does well serving SIN and ICN one stop year round.

I doubt they would relaunch ORD-AMS route because first of all UA would never give up the route to SQ due to the fact that UA and SQ are not in a JV. Secondly the yields on the route are okay but not spectacular. You state that the ORD-AMS has 3 daily on 3 carriers. Who is the third carrier besides KL and UA who both operate daily flights who operates the third flight? Because I think there are only 2 daily flights on the ORD-AMS route.

SQ has options if they want to get back into the ORD market although I don't know if they have shown any public interest in returning to ORD it seems more like a a.netters wish list than reality because when they were flying ORD-AMS-SIN the ORD-AMS portion of the flight did not last very long. But who know what will happen they could return to ORD but don't expect UA to cut one of their international flights out of ORD just to make room for SQ.


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9592 times:

A stop in Japan doesn't really add much distance on the flight to LAX, but I was wondering if they could replace the New York service with a 1 stop service via Beijing, Seoul or even a fuel stop somewhere like Ulan Bator or Siberia because it would just add 1 hour to the flying time but save a fortune in fuel, and even allow to fly a 330/777/744 fully loaded and make some good money on this route. A stop in Ulan Bator or Siberia would also have the advantage of connecting New York and Singapore to these new destinations, which they could charge a premium for as well. Mongolia would probably be quite happy to suddenly have direct flights to both Singapore and the USA. And I don't know, but maybe fuel in Siberia is pretty cheap seeing as they have oil wells there.

Singapore - JFK direct 15 hours
Singapore - JFK 1 stop (ULN) 16 hours (10+5 hours, with 1 hour for refueling)

For me a flight like that would be better than the 15 hour direct flight, as 10 hours is enough to sleep and so you sleep, wake up and have breakfast, take a walk around the airport lounge then get back on board for another 5 hours. This is a lot better than the 21 hour flights via Frankfurt or Tokyo and should be less expensive to operate (6 hours less fuel, lower landing fees etc).


User currently offlinepeterinlisbon From Portugal, joined Jan 2006, 547 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9312 times:

With a stop in Novosibirsk JFK-SIN would also be a 15h flight (9 + 6 hours), and Novosibirsk is the third largest city in Russia.

User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 3122 posts, RR: 20
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 9189 times:

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 11):
Schedule would compliment existing ORD-HKG service, be similar with most of CX flights (other than ORD), and provide a direct link to SIN.

SQ fully utilises their current beyond rights out of HKG so the only way to add ORD would be to drop the existing HKG-SFO service. I don't see that happening.

The major thing holding SQ out of North America is traffic rights, or the lack of them. With SQ fully utilising their current rights beyond HKG, ICN and NRT expansion won't happen until additional rights can be obtained. (Which is unlikely) The only way a new North America flight could be added is via Europe or the re-addition of a flight via TPE which I think is more than likely eventually.

Other than that SQ will have to rely on Partners to drive traffic to its gateway cities in North America. There is not really that much they can do.

(SQ used to serve Vancouver 3 x weekly via ICN which they suspended in 2009)


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4520 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 8725 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):

SQ does not do much with UA and barely codeshares.

So... we won't be seeing SQ at EWR for quite a while (if ever).


User currently offlineUnited Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9187 posts, RR: 15
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 7271 times:

Perhaps they should restart SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR once they get the A350-900?

What about SINHKG-LAS and SIN-AMS-ORD/EWR?

Quoting Coal (Reply 1):
The problem there is that most pax on the USA-HKG CX planes are typically going to mainland China, which is not very convenient if your transit point is Singapore. So in this case, SQ is not well positioned geographically.

I thought a lot of them actually fly to HKG or to South East Asia

Quoting Sydscott (Reply 17):
(SQ used to serve Vancouver 3 x weekly via ICN which they suspended in 2009)

Why did they cut Toronto? It was something to do with AC from what I heard?

CX can sustain double daily HKG-YVR service why can't SQ sustain 3 times weekly? GEEEEEEEEEEEEZ


User currently offlinelutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 778 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6616 times:

SIN is too far south and west to be a natural hub for US-Asia traffic - Japan/ Korea/ China hubs make more sense, which is why so many more US destinations from N Asia than SIN.

Think their strategy will continue to be one stop flights, that ae competive for some markets (e.g. SIN, Indonesia) but not for others.


User currently offlineangmoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 492 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 6462 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 19):
CX can sustain double daily HKG-YVR service why can't SQ sustain 3 times weekly?

Because of rights. I forgot the details of the story but they wanted daily but did not have the rights needed to do so.

Quoting jayunited (Reply 14):
doubt they would relaunch ORD-AMS route because first of all UA would never give up the route to SQ due to the fact that UA and SQ are not in a JV. Secondly the yields on the route are okay but not spectacular.

ORD-AMS will not happen. SIN-AMS is a 77E configured for the AMS market and always packed. It is doing well on its own so why risk this by adding ORD when there is very little upside? The utilisation rate of the aircraft will also drop because of the added AMS-ORD leg.


User currently offlineKarelXWB From Netherlands, joined Jul 2012, 12065 posts, RR: 34
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5926 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 7):
In a normal configuration, yes, but I don't expect them to fly these ULH routes with a normal configuration. In a low density config, the A359 should be able to fly SIN-NYC. The problem with the A345 was not, selling the 100 J seats. The problem was making money on the route. With the A359 being 20+% cheaper to operate compared with the A345, I think SQ would make money on the route even with a very low density config. This is why I expect these non-stops to return.

Good arguments, I can see two options:

> Operate the route with an A359 / 777-9 configured with J seats only
> Wait for the A359R / 777-8 configured in a default F | J | Y cabin (maybe with reduced seats)

Quoting TWA772LR (Reply 13):
I'm still baffled they didn't by the 77L, along with QF...
Anyone know why SQ got the A345 vs. the 77L?

Availability. The 777-200LR was not available before 2006 while SQ got their A345's in 2004, and fuel prices were way lower in 2004 which means you could make money with the airframe at that time. Than the fuel prices hit the sky and they were stuck with the A345 because you can't resell them (nobody want's them) nor store them (too expensive).

[Edited 2013-09-30 01:45:38]


Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe.
User currently offlineLH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 5858 times:

I found on the SQ website that they will start deploying the high-premium A380 (i.e., no Y on the upper deck) from November 30 on SIN-FRA-JFK-FRA-SIN, which makes sense considering they're losing 100 J seats from the SIN-EWR flight.

[Edited 2013-09-30 02:00:27]

User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2065 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 5815 times:

Quoting United Airline (Reply 19):
I thought a lot of them actually fly to HKG or to South East Asia

Hmmm there may certainly be some pax transiting there, but CX/KA have nowhere near as good a network in Southeast Asia as do SQ/MI and conversely CX/KA have a fantastic Mainland China network that 1) SQ doesn't have (not bad, but not as good) and 2) Why would you fly all the way to Singapore and backtrack 3-5hrs to Mainland China?

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-LAX | VX LAX-FLL | B6 FLL-BOG-FLL | VX FLL-LAX | VA LAX-SYD | VA SYD-PER-SYD
User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 25, posted (1 year 3 weeks ago) and read 5904 times:

Outside of NRT, SQ is able to enjoy 5th freedom from Japan, but the problem is filling and obtain the right yield on the trans-pac leg.

By the way, ever since swtiching to the A380, are they ever going to fix the departure times on the LAX-NRT-SIN? The NRT-SIN flight arrives in SIN at 0255.

Quoting United Airline (Reply 19):
CX can sustain double daily HKG-YVR service why can't SQ sustain 3 times weekly?

I believe Singapore is only alloted 3 weekly to Canada.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 26, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 5722 times:

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 22):

> Operate the route with an A359 / 777-9 configured with J seats only
> Wait for the A359R / 777-8 configured in a default F | J | Y cabin (maybe with reduced seats)

The first option with A359 is my guess   It would be very interesting to find out how many seats SQ could put in the A359 and still fly non-stop SIN-EWR. I think the 779 might be too big, not to mention it's a Group VI airplane and can't operate at EWR. And when you consider that they are flying an A380 daily out of JFK, that would be too much capacity to NYC, IMHO. I'm betting on SQ having a sub-fleet of A359's in a low density config to operate routes where premium traffic demand is strong.


User currently offlinejcwr56 From United States of America, joined Jul 2012, 524 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 5766 times:

I'll agree, I just don't see SQ returning to ORD at all. They gave it a shot back in August 2001 and when Sept. 11th hit 5 weeks later, that pretty much ended it for them.

Even with the newer long range aircraft, the amount of PDEW just isn't enough.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 28, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 5540 times:

Quoting jcwr56 (Reply 27):
I'll agree, I just don't see SQ returning to ORD at all. They gave it a shot back in August 2001 and when Sept. 11th hit 5 weeks later, that pretty much ended it for them.

From what I understand, UA made life very difficult for SQ at ORD, starting with forcing them out to AMS which is a notorious low yield TATL route and also by not code-sharing with SQ. IIRC, SQ wanted to fly to Chicago via another more prominent city in Europe (which I can't now remember but I think it was FRA). They were also allowed only 3x weekly frequencies. So basically UA fought SQ at ORD from the day SQ showed intentions of serving the city. SQ's announced goal for ORD was to capture *A corporate traffic from ORD. That strategy was front and center during their announcement of the route. Not obtaining UA code-shares meant that they couldn't get those corporate customers. On top of that AMS not being a *A hub made it impossible for SQ to carry passengers bound for other cities beyond AMS.

The big question now is whether the new UA has a warmer relationship with SQ. Would they be more welcoming today than they were a decade ago? That's what it boils down to.


User currently offlineManekS From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 241 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 5382 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 28):
The big question now is whether the new UA has a warmer relationship with SQ. Would they be more welcoming today than they were a decade ago? That's what it boils down to.

In the unlikely event Singapore were to re-enter the Chicago area, they would be competing with United's ORD-HKG-SIN service, making cooperation between the two improbable.


User currently offlineBLRAviation From India, joined Feb 2009, 357 posts, RR: 14
Reply 30, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 5126 times:

Firstly thanks to everyone for such nice and positive responses. Shows a good depth of analysis.

Quoting Coal (Reply 1):
I think with the continued growth of Indonesia and ASEAN in general, SQ should be able to continue to benefit from US - Southeast Asia flights.

For SQ, the ASEAN market, including the emerging Myanmar is important, as is traffic from the Indian sub-continent. The issue with ASEAN is similar to Europe i.e. many national carriers offering connections to the US. SQ, MH, TG have flights to the west coast. I do not know the situation with Garuda or Vietnam Airlines. Each of these airlines have strong local ties i.e. co-branded credit cards, duty free shopping discounts in their respective airports, and therefore frequent flier residents of the respective countries tend to stay with the particular national carrier.

In case of the Indian sub-continent, SQ has lost the US eastern-half traffic. i.e. New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Houston, to EK, EY, QR and TK. To the west coast SQ is facing very strong pressure from CX/KA, EK, LH, BA, amongst others.

I agree that we should see the SIN-TPE-LAX flight resurrected very soon. With their experience, I do not see SQ bringing back ULH non-stop flights.

The SIN-DME-IAH flight is the oil connection. Singapore is a major refinery centre, Russia is a supplier, and Houston is the oil capital of the US. There is no synergy of a Russian city with ORD. Which city from Europe can SQ use as a launch pad to interior cities like ORD?

VS is now with Delta, so LHR is out of the question. Do you see SQ deepening its relations with LH and using FRA? In return offering LH more ASEAN connectivity and also to Australia/NZ? Is there enough demand between Germany and these countries?

With competition increasing do we see Hong Kong, Japan, Korea giving SQ more rights?



I am on Twitter @BLRAviation
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 31, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 4856 times:

Quoting ManekS (Reply 29):
n the unlikely event Singapore were to re-enter the Chicago area, they would be competing with United's ORD-HKG-SIN service, making cooperation between the two improbable.

The issue is not traffic between ORD and SIN. The issue is traffic between ORD and whatever intermediary city SQ wants to use. SQ would likely want to fly between ORD and a *A hub in Europe so they could sell 1-stop tickets between ORD and any city in Europe. But that puts them in direct competition with UA.


User currently offlinenomorerjs From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 508 posts, RR: 0
Reply 32, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4768 times:

What about OSL, KIX, or TPE (unless BR enters ORD) for ORD - SIN? UA seems to be in bed with AC, LH, and NH at ORD. All other * members are just a f-buddy for UA (there when you need them, otherwise no need to be there).

User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6002 posts, RR: 9
Reply 33, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4610 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 28):
UA made life very difficult for SQ at ORD, starting with forcing them out to AMS which is a notorious low yield TATL route and also by not code-sharing with SQ.

Not so sure about that...Outside of the JVs UA has no control over any of their partners and AFAIK they don't have ATI with SQ so neither carrier could legally discuss route/network planning with each other.

SQ, while a member of Star, doesn't play well with others....UA and SQ have never code shared and from what I understand that's due to SQ not liking competition.

Quoting nomorerjs (Reply 32):
What about OSL, KIX, or TPE (unless BR enters ORD) for ORD - SIN? UA seems to be in bed with AC, LH, and NH at ORD. All other * members are just a f-buddy for UA (there when you need them, otherwise no need to be there).

UA code shares with a lot of Star partners at ORD but yes is very close to their JV partners: the LH group (LH, OS, LX) AC and NH.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 34, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4617 times:

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 25):
Quoting United Airline (Reply 19):
CX can sustain double daily HKG-YVR service why can't SQ sustain 3 times weekly?

I believe Singapore is only alloted 3 weekly to Canada.

SQ can operate an unlimited number of flights to anywhere in Canada provided the flights are nonstop, wihch is obviously never going to happen. SQ depended on low fare 5th freedom traffic ICN-YVR when they served YVR previously.


User currently offlineCoal From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2065 posts, RR: 9
Reply 35, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4548 times:

Quoting BLRAviation (Reply 30):
For SQ, the ASEAN market, including the emerging Myanmar is important, as is traffic from the Indian sub-continent. The issue with ASEAN is similar to Europe i.e. many national carriers offering connections to the US. SQ, MH, TG have flights to the west coast. I do not know the situation with Garuda or Vietnam Airlines. Each of these airlines have strong local ties i.e. co-branded credit cards, duty free shopping discounts in their respective airports, and therefore frequent flier residents of the respective countries tend to stay with the particular national carrier.

Perhaps, but SQ's product is superior and the connections are pretty good, so I still think SQ has the edge of SEA connecting traffic. Also, I would take the second part of your argument and turn it around and say that SQ has done exactly that in Indonesia: Great marketing, co-branded credit cards, ability to earn KrisFlyer miles at a bunch of retailers in Jakarta, etc.

Cheers
Coal



Nxt Flts: VA SYD-LAX | VX LAX-FLL | B6 FLL-BOG-FLL | VX FLL-LAX | VA LAX-SYD | VA SYD-PER-SYD
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4520 posts, RR: 7
Reply 36, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 4517 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 26):
The 779 might be too big, not to mention it's a Group VI airplane and can't operate at EWR.

The 779 won't be able to operate out of EWR??????


User currently offlineCarpethead From Japan, joined Aug 2004, 2971 posts, RR: 3
Reply 37, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4339 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 34):
I believe Singapore is only alloted 3 weekly to Canada.

SQ can operate an unlimited number of flights to anywhere in Canada provided the flights are nonstop, wihch is obviously never going to happen. SQ depended on low fare 5th freedom traffic ICN-YVR when they served YVR previously.

Thanks for clearing that up.
Perhaps the 789 or A359 will make SIN-YVR non-stop possible one day.


User currently offlinetriley1057 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 1999, 462 posts, RR: 1
Reply 38, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4298 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 28):

What is the relationship between UA and SQ on the SIN-DME-IAH flight? Are there codeshares beyond IAH? I feel like a while back I read something about SQ code sharing with US on IAH- PHX.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6002 posts, RR: 9
Reply 39, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4261 times:

Quoting triley1057 (Reply 38):
What is the relationship between UA and SQ on the SIN-DME-IAH flight? Are there codeshares beyond IAH? I feel like a while back I read something about SQ code sharing with US on IAH- PHX.

UA and SQ do not codeshare anywhere worldwide. You will see some UA/SQ interline schedules published but that's about it...SQ does have some US & VX code shares domestically but I can't find the SQ code on IAH-PHX flights.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineangmoh From Singapore, joined Nov 2011, 492 posts, RR: 0
Reply 40, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4246 times:

Quoting triley1057 (Reply 38):
What is the relationship between UA and SQ on the SIN-DME-IAH flight? Are there codeshares beyond IAH?

SIN-DME-IAH is a codeshare with Transaero. I don't think there are any codeshares with UA.


User currently offlineUSAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 3108 posts, RR: 2
Reply 41, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4234 times:

I've always wondered why SQ chose US as their *A partner in the US over UA.

I also recall SQ serving LAS via HKG. When did that end?



E135/E140/E145/E70/E75/E90/CR2/CR7/CR9/717/732/733/734/735/73G/738/739/752/753/762/772/319/320/321/333
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6002 posts, RR: 9
Reply 42, posted (1 year 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 4208 times:

Quoting USAirALB (Reply 41):
I've always wondered why SQ chose US as their *A partner in the US over UA.

US doesn't fly to SIN...SQ does not like competition.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 43, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3761 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 33):
SQ, while a member of Star, doesn't play well with others....UA and SQ have never code shared and from what I understand that's due to SQ not liking competition.

I'm not sure it is SQ not playing with others. They code-share with other *A partners. Just not UA. There's obviously something going on between SQ and UA but since I don't know the real reason, it's hard to assign blame to one of the other. My guess would be UA not liking SQ, rather than the other way around.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 36):
The 779 won't be able to operate out of EWR??????

Nope. Even if it comes with those snazy folding wing tips it will still have runway restrictions. It wil be a group VI aircraft just like the 748 and A380 which also can't fly to EWR.


User currently offlineinfinit From Singapore, joined Jul 2008, 583 posts, RR: 1
Reply 44, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 3732 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 42):
US doesn't fly to SIN...SQ does not like competition.

But SQ codeshares with NH and LH.
They seem to get along very well with NH especially. I noticed I could book a lot of NH-operated flights to many parts of Japan on SQ's website


User currently offlineavek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4405 posts, RR: 19
Reply 45, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3656 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 43):
There's obviously something going on between SQ and UA but since I don't know the real reason

The real reason is that New United, along with New Delta, are SQ's biggest competitive threats in the North American market.



Live life to the fullest.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 46, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Quoting infinit (Reply 44):
But SQ codeshares with NH and LH.
They seem to get along very well with NH especially. I noticed I could book a lot of NH-operated flights to many parts of Japan on SQ's website

This is why I lean towards UA being the one not wanting to play with SQ.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 45):
The real reason is that New United, along with New Delta, are SQ's biggest competitive threats in the North American market.

Right. SQ has everything to gain and UA has everything to lose, with a code-share between the 2. This is why I don't subscribe to the theory that "SQ doesn't want to play with UA". SQ has forced itself into UA's flagship TPAC routes and I think that has roughed some feathers at UA.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6002 posts, RR: 9
Reply 47, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3472 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 46):
SQ has forced itself into UA's flagship TPAC routes and I think that has roughed some feathers at UA.

SQ has been flying across the Pacific long before UA launched a single transpacific route....this has nothing to do with the UA side  
Quoting avek00 (Reply 45):

Quoting airbazar (Reply 43):
There's obviously something going on between SQ and UA but since I don't know the real reason

The real reason is that New United, along with New Delta, are SQ's biggest competitive threats in the North American market.

        

Quoting airbazar (Reply 46):
Right. SQ has everything to gain and UA has everything to lose, with a code-share between the 2

Not really...SQ needs US domestic feed much more then UA needs feed out of SIN. SIN is not an idea connection point for traffic to north america.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3425 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 47):

Not really...SQ needs US domestic feed much more then UA needs feed out of SIN. SIN is not an idea connection point for traffic to north america.

Umm, you just said exactly the same thing he did?

SQ needs feed = gain
UA doesn't = lose


User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4520 posts, RR: 7
Reply 49, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 3432 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 43):
Nope. Even if it comes with those snazy folding wing tips it will still have runway restrictions. It wil be a group VI aircraft just like the 748 and A380 which also can't fly to EWR

Interesting. I think I read on here that the 748 was given some kind of exemption or something at EWR.

Exemptions aside, it just further highlights how they need to bury the turnpike and move 4R/22L further to the east.


User currently offlineViscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 25626 posts, RR: 22
Reply 50, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3256 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 43):
Quoting United1 (Reply 33):
SQ, while a member of Star, doesn't play well with others....UA and SQ have never code shared and from what I understand that's due to SQ not liking competition.

I'm not sure it is SQ not playing with others. They code-share with other *A partners. Just not UA. There's obviously something going on between SQ and UA but since I don't know the real reason, it's hard to assign blame to one of the other. My guess would be UA not liking SQ, rather than the other way around.



UA and SQ have barely been on speaking terms since SQ launched SIN-AMS-ORD service some years ago (it didn't last long). According to a UA executive I used to deal with (he was closely involved with UA's Star Alliance activities), that 5th freedom route from AMS to UA's major hub, competing directly with UA, was the beginning of UA and SQ's poor working relationship.


User currently offlinePellegrine From France, joined Mar 2007, 2468 posts, RR: 8
Reply 51, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3254 times:

2nd daily on LAX, possibly/i think/eventually 2nd daily on JFK. SQ just received another 77W three days ago, and they have 6 (?) more coming.

LAX and JFK/EWR go back to n/s eventually with introduction of either A359R or A359HGW/increased tankage.



oh boy!!!
User currently offlinea380787 From United States of America, joined Jul 2013, 990 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3204 times:

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 50):
UA and SQ have barely been on speaking terms since SQ launched SIN-AMS-ORD service some years ago (it didn't last long). According to a UA executive I used to deal with (he was closely involved with UA's Star Alliance activities), that 5th freedom route from AMS to UA's major hub, competing directly with UA, was the beginning of UA and SQ's poor working relationship.

SQ also directly competes with UA on 4 other fronts : NYC-FRA (domestically EWR/JFK are 2 markets, but internationally, it's one), SFO-ICN, SFO-HKG, LAX-NRT

If SQ really wants to re-launch ORD while re-building the relationship with UA, they could consider upgauging SIN-HKG-SFO to A380 then switch SIN-ICN-ORD to SIN-ICN-ORD


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 53, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 3099 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 28):
From what I understand, UA made life very difficult for SQ at ORD, starting with forcing them out to AMS which is a notorious low yield TATL route and also by not code-sharing with SQ. IIRC, SQ wanted to fly to Chicago via another more prominent city in Europe (which I can't now remember but I think it was FRA). They were also allowed only 3x weekly frequencies. So basically UA fought SQ at ORD from the day SQ showed intentions of serving the city. SQ's announced goal for ORD was to capture *A corporate traffic from ORD. That strategy was front and center during their announcement of the route. Not obtaining UA code-shares meant that they couldn't get those corporate customers. On top of that AMS not being a *A hub made it impossible for SQ to carry passengers bound for other cities beyond AMS.

I would like for you to provide proof to back up your assertion. United did not forced SQ to fly AMS-ORD-AMS instead of FRA-ORD-FRA. United has no authority to tell another airline what routes they can and can not fly so where did you get this information from that SQ wanted to fly FRA-ORD-FRA but was some how prevented from doing so by UA?

Quoting airbazar (Reply 46):
Right. SQ has everything to gain and UA has everything to lose, with a code-share between the 2. This is why I don't subscribe to the theory that "SQ doesn't want to play with UA". SQ has forced itself into UA's flagship TPAC routes and I think that has roughed some feathers at UA.

What does UA stand to loose SQ already flies some of the same routes that UA flies without any problems, SQ flies SFO-ICN, and SFO-HKG so does UA and SQ has not effected our yields or our load factors, SQ flies LAX-NRT so does UA and although UA has placed the 787 on this route this wasn't due to poor load factors it was do to low yields. So what exactly does UA stand to loose they have great JV's in place with both European and Asian partners which provide with great feed and UA also provides both LH and NH with great feed as well. UA and SQ play well together they just don't code share on flights


User currently offlineLH422 From Germany, joined Sep 2010, 416 posts, RR: 0
Reply 54, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2704 times:

Quoting N62NA (Reply 49):
Interesting. I think I read on here that the 748 was given some kind of exemption or something at EWR.

That discussion was here:

Is It Logical To Expect LH To Send The 748 To JFK? (by MesaFlyGuy Sep 24 2013 in Civil Aviation)

LH have already operated a scheduled 747-8 flight to EWR without any demonstration in mind, just for operational reasons.


User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 6002 posts, RR: 9
Reply 55, posted (1 year 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

Quoting gegarrenton (Reply 48):
Umm, you just said exactly the same thing he did?

SQ needs feed = gain
UA doesn't = lose

Perhaps I read what he wrote wrong but I believe I said the opposite thing that he said. SQ needs UA/US/VX much more then UA needs SQ...



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8471 posts, RR: 10
Reply 56, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2410 times:

Quoting jayunited (Reply 53):
I would like for you to provide proof to back up your assertion. United did not forced SQ to fly AMS-ORD-AMS instead of FRA-ORD-FRA. United has no authority to tell another airline what routes they can and can not fly so where did you get this information from that SQ wanted to fly FRA-ORD-FRA but was some how prevented from doing so by UA?

Come one, you're not going to really find that with a google search. SQ is not the kind of airline to air dirty laundry in public. And if you don't think that UA/LH who have a TATL JV, have a say in what airlines operate between their 2 biggest hubs, you're being naive. But why don't you solve the mistery of UA/SQ strained relations yourself?  
Quoting jayunited (Reply 53):
What does UA stand to loose SQ already flies some of the same routes that UA flies without any problems,

It's not just at SFO. The broader topic is why doesn't SQ code-share with UA? It's simple: UA's feed and especially its corporate contracts are far more valuable to SQ, than a SQ code-share is for UA because as you said, UA already covers those routes. UA is the bigger carrier, with a much bigger customer base and network in the U.S.


User currently offlinegegarrenton From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 211 posts, RR: 0
Reply 57, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 2345 times:

Quoting United1 (Reply 55):
Perhaps I read what he wrote wrong but I believe I said the opposite thing that he said. SQ needs UA/US/VX much more then UA needs SQ...

If SQ needs UA, and they let them get that feed, how is that not a gain?


User currently offlinejayunited From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 980 posts, RR: 2
Reply 58, posted (1 year 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2172 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 56):
Come one, you're not going to really find that with a google search. SQ is not the kind of airline to air dirty laundry in public. And if you don't think that UA/LH who have a TATL JV, have a say in what airlines operate between their 2 biggest hubs, you're being naive. But why don't you solve the mistery of UA/SQ strained relations yourself?  

Exactly as I thought you made a claim without any proof to back up a single statement that you have made. No airline can stop or block another airline from launching a route as you claimed UA did earlier in this thread. And the JV that you just mentioned has no bearing on this topic for the simple reason back when SQ was on the AMS-ORD-AMS route but as you claim wanted instead to fly FRA-ORD-FRA route LH and UA were not in a JV. LH and UA were simply partners in the same alliance who worked extremely close together but there was no JV. And even if their had be a JV between LH and UA neither one of these airlines would still have the power to tell another airline you can't fly this route.
The issue here is you made a statement without any proof or concrete evidence to back it up and I guess now you are tying to back track by saying SQ does not air their dirty laundry or you won't find this by doing a google search. I don't need to do a google search I have been in this industry for a very long time and one thing that I know for sure is when an airline decides to launch a new route they alway say pending government approval. Every airline will fight to preserve their market share but they can not prevent another airline from entering the market. If what you claimed is true how then was UA able to prevent SQ from entering the FRA-ORD-FRA market but somehow we were unable to prevent VX from entering the EWR-LAX-EWR market? How could we stop an airline like SQ but fail to stop VX from entering a market. As you can see it makes no since. Airlines can try to force their competitor out of a market but they can not prevent an airline from entering a market.

So my question still remain where did you get this information that SQ wanted to fly FRA-ORD-FRA but UA somehow was able to stop them for even launching the route? All I'm asking is for you to share so can we here on a.netters view this information?


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...
Air Sahara Firms Up US Landing Strategy posted Wed Oct 5 2005 17:44:19 by LAXDESI
US Learns From Singapore Air AKL Near Disaster posted Thu May 5 2005 12:49:28 by 777ER
Singapore Air Seeks 210 Weekly Flights To India posted Mon Mar 14 2005 09:38:53 by Nimish
Gulf Air Resumes US Flights posted Sun Jul 27 2003 19:43:39 by EurostarVA
Intra-US Flights With EVA AIR's 747-400! posted Wed May 29 2002 03:43:47 by Setjet
Singapore And Gulf Air Suspends Flights To Egypt posted Mon Oct 8 2001 18:49:54 by RJ_Delta
TK And ESB-us Flights? posted Thu Jul 25 2013 16:27:03 by noreika1
EU Vote May Lead To Suspension Of EU-US Flights posted Thu Jul 4 2013 20:44:49 by jfidler
Minoan Air OXF Flights posted Thu Feb 28 2013 10:26:30 by GCT64
Future Of Singapore Airlines And Its Strategy posted Wed Jan 9 2013 08:22:54 by LAXintl