AT
Topic Author
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2000 12:16 pm

Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:35 am


Just curious, why is the new Singapore Airlines nonstop to Newark ? I would have thought JFK would be a more logical choice. Or may be not?

Also, I know they're aiming for the business market, but I still don't understand why they don't have First Class on the Airbus 340-500. Don't you get the most First Class passengers on the longest flights?
 
kl911
Posts: 3981
Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 1:10 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 12:50 am

EWR offers more domestic connections.

KL911
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:00 am

Not that this issue hasnt been addressed numerous times over... but anyways, it didnt have anything to do with connections.

Quite simply, SQ didnt feel it could justify three destinations into NYC concurrently in todays market. It would have to ax either FRA-JFK (highly profitable) or AMS-EWR (weakly/not profitable).

They chose EWR for that purpose, simple as that.

Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
CAL
Posts: 451
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 10:33 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:04 am

You got it and EWR is closer to the City anyway.
CAL........Continental Airlines....... Work Hard, Fly Right
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:07 am

...well, Manhattan yes.

Tough to be closer to "the city" than JFK, which is in the city.  Big grin
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:12 am

SQ's non-stop service was aimed especially at business travelers, and SQ said that EWR was the best airport for these travelers (although it has been argued that EWR is only closer for some places in NYC and that JFK is closer for other places) - although other reasons, including ConcordeBoy's reply, were factors.

 Smile
-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
flyguy1
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 1999 9:45 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:13 am

EWR is closer to certain parts of Manhattan, not the whole boro. So SQ could not make a double daily service into JFK work? CX, and other Asian airlines seem to be successful at doing this.
727, L1011, MD80, A300, 777-200, 737-300, 737-700, 747-400, 757-200, 737-800, A320. E190, E135, 767-200, CRJ9
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:28 am

So SQ could not make a double daily service into JFK work?

Their last attempt at that (JFK-FRA/AMS) failed




Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:31 am

So SQ could not make a double daily service into JFK work? CX, and other Asian airlines seem to be successful at doing this.
SQ is unique in that it had JFK-FRA-SIN and would also have JFK-SIN. Other carriers, including Asian carriers, have additional service, or service from other airports (such as BA and VS with service from EWR and JFK to LHR).

CX has JFK-YVR-HGK service, as well as direct JFK-HKG service. I believe that the JFK-YVR-HKG service is very profitable on the individual JFK-YVR and YVR-HKG segments, as well as the route on the whole.

For SQ, the only conceivable and logical way to get to SIN from NYC was doing the JFK-FRA-SIN (or EWR-AMS-SIN), compared to HKG where one could go to another Asian city first, fly to a different US city and then over to HKG, not to mention flying on another carrier (CO, for example). Simply put (as mentioned by ConcordeBoy), doing double JFK service would kill off the FRA routing, so they chose EWR where the AMS service would not be as affected.

 Smile
-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
ConcordeBoy
Posts: 16852
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2001 8:04 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:50 am

so they chose EWR where the AMS service would not be as affected

...if of course, by "would not be as affected" you mean "terminated", then yeah  Laugh out loud
Faire du ciel le plus bel endroit de la terre c'est impossible sans Concorde!
 
JBLUA320
Posts: 2997
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 8:51 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:16 am

No no no you're all wrong.

It's because us New Jersey folk are dead sexy  Smile

JBLU
 
flyguy1
Posts: 1660
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 1999 9:45 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:02 am

Concordeboy:
SQ never operated JFK 2x daily. The services to FRA, and AMS were operated on seperate days. FRA-JFK was 4/7, AMS/JFK was 3/7.
727, L1011, MD80, A300, 777-200, 737-300, 737-700, 747-400, 757-200, 737-800, A320. E190, E135, 767-200, CRJ9
 
Leskova
Posts: 5547
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:39 pm

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:52 am

Flyguy1, actually not quite - FRA-JFK had been daily for quite a while, but went down to the 4 flights per week I think one or two years ago (might also have been after 9/11, but I'm not really sure when the cutback happened) - but it's been back to daily for a while again.

And wasn't the AMS flight into EWR anyhow? So it wouldn't have been JFK double-daily in any case...

Regards,
Frank
Smile - it confuses people!
 
SafetyDude
Posts: 3654
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 10:02 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 6:59 am

The only thing that I can find is that SQ had 3x weekly SIN-AMS-EWR service which was discontinued when non-stop service started.

 Smile
-Will
"She Flew For What We Stand For"
 
Ex_SQer
Posts: 1351
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 5:43 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:58 am

Actually all you guys were right:

JFK service started in 1992 with 3/7 via F-R-A and 3/7 via BRU. BRU-JFK was discontinued a year later and the 3/7 frequencies were routed via AMS. SIN-F RA-JFK went up to 4/7 later, thus giving SIA daily service to JFK.

In 1997, when SQ and LH started co-operating, FRA was upped to daily. That was when the 3/7 frequencies via AMS were routed to EWR. A 4th weekly flight was added later, before it was discontinued.

When the frequencies via F RA went up to daily, SQ initially planned to continue operating the AMS flights to JFK. However, because of flight timings (ie arrivals into both Europe and SIN), both services would have to depart JFK at about the same time. At that juncture, a decision was made to move the AMS flights to EWR.
 
KFRG
Posts: 353
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2002 10:37 am

RE: Singapore To New York Nonstop: Why EWR?

Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:21 pm

...well, Manhattan yes.

Tough to be closer to "the city" than JFK, which is in the city.


When people use the term "The City", they are reffering to the Borough of Manhattan, the financial district of NY. Queens is hardly "The City", it just happens to exist in the borders of the City of New York.


[Edited 2004-08-22 06:21:34]