Yes we can whine. We can whine about why BA
both daily with a 744 while SQ
can't get LHR
Sorry Singapore_Air but even though SQ
is one of my favourite airlines, let us look at this rationally so please don't take this as a personal attack on you.
Thing is, its all about both sides wanting something. BA
ALREADY has the rights ex SIN
so they never bargained for more. SIA was desperate for LHR JFK
. so one side is desperate, one side is not, nothing is gained.
Whereas now you have VS
(49% owned by Singapore Airlines Limited, the greatest airline in the world) from the Brit side desperate for HKG SYD
(which they don't have) and CX
desperate for LHR JFK
. So with 2 parties needing something, a deal is reached.
And remember, Along with BA
which is GOOD for SIN
. If SIN
's right to fly to Australia, BA
can always move to KUL
or some other place. SIN
is not indespensible to BA
. Unforunately, LHR
is for SQ
, I assure you, will not be bothered with CX
(pardon the foul language, S_Air!! ) being able to operate LHR
. Besides prestige, it would not have contributed much to their bottom line. One daily flight for LHR
cannot compete with the (however many) daily flights provided by BA
On the other hand, if SQ
halts all (erm...3) daily flights to LHR
in retaliation, The BAA is not going to beg them to come back.
Perhaps it might be a loss of face. But face doesn't count in the business world. It's the bottomline.
If anything, it was because VS
, 49% owned by Singapore Airlines Limited - A proud member of Star Alliance - was desperate to operate HKG
, that resulted in this. At least now you cannot blame the British Civil Aviation Authority (whatever they are called) for bias towards BA
or against VS
. They clearly acted in VS
's interests and for that, I applaud them.
That is the reality of the business world. A tough world out there!
About Up to 85% of SQ
's USA flights do not have pax originating in SIN
, but either in other South East Asian destinations or in their intermediate destinations in Seoul, Taipei, Hong Kong Tokyo, Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
Of course in the past it could be argued that SQ
NEEDED to stop somewhere en route to the US since there wasn't a plane long enough for that range. It turned out to be a blessing in disguise since most of the revenue generated for SQ
in the US ultimately came FROM those intermediate destinations.
Is it fair that SQ
can operate a daily LAX
), Japan">NRT flight when JAL doesn't use any fifth freedom rights out of Singapore? Is it fair that in return for daily flights to New York from Frankfurt for SQ
, all LH
does is a daily flight to Jakarta from SIN
Is it fair that SIA can fly 10 times a week from Seoul to Vancouver and San Francisco, and daily from Seoul to Bangkok, while Korean Air/Asiana don't use any fifth freedom rights beyond SIN
In the business world, we win some, we lose some. Emotions don't count. It's all about "what do I have to gain"
Remember - in the case of HK
and the UK, both sides had airlines with strong wants. In the case of Singapore and the UK, only the Singapore side had a strong want. It's so simple!