Could be an attractive frequent flyer programme? Plenty of people from Manchester still choose to fly via another hub to get to where they want despite more and more direct options becoming available.

Like I say, why are people trying to discredit this route every which way they can. Just because you don't understand why it's done doesn't mean it's not viable?

User001 wrote:

Like I say, why are people trying to discredit this route every which way they can. Just because you don't understand why it's done doesn't mean it's not viable?

Good question, perhaps he lives in a city that he feels is far more worthy than Houston.

User001 wrote:

Instead of trying every which way to discredit such a route, why don't we just let SQ make the decision and let SQ get on with it? They are big boys, I'm sure they know what they are doing!

When it comes to long-haul flying though, do they? Do they know what they're doing? Remember this article from late last year?

Our main takeaway from the briefing is that SIA’s future is grim if it doesn’t change the way it do business. The days of Singapore and SIA being the long-haul hub for the ASEAN region is over,” Aziz said.

In particular, he highlighted that SIA’s long-haul routes have been almost consistently loss-making since FY09 as its competitors have refined their strategy and successfully established themselves into SIA’s markets.

That being the case, can we really trust that they know what they're doing?

They are still here and still flying long haul, so maybe they do know what they are doing?

Or should they abandon route development and just refer to the a.net book or airline operations as seen as we clearly know what's best for them?

User001 wrote:

They are still here and still flying long haul, so maybe they do know what they are doing?

Being owned by the government might have something to do with that. Do you really think if virtually all of their long-haul flying had been loss making since FY2009 they'd still be flying long haul if they weren't majority owned by their government shy of some fundamental ownership change or massive equity investment?

But the fact is they are still flying.

I'm not interested in the financials, I'm just bewildered why some seem so bewildered that SQ have supposedly decided that the new routing is the better option for them and going to start the route, and that Manchester is some yield and load black hole?

It's more the fact that people thousands of miles away are questioning a Manchester route, when said airport is 24.1 million passengers strong, 2 A380 per day, will be first UK airport to get US pre border customs, 15 foreign long haul airlines (and growing) and soon to be hub carrier with VS and BE, Home to over 100 based aircraft, yet the prospect of a Houston route is just bonkers?!?

DolphinAir747 wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

IAH-SIN passenger demand is from the oil industry, and also shipping interests. The Port of Houston is the largest port in the US based on tonnage, and there is a lot of port related business with Singapore. That said, oil traffic is the biggest contributor. When oil prices come back, SQ wants to be ready and capture that traffic.

But why would these business passengers take a long detour on SQ versus a much quicker flight via an American or Asian hub? Time is money for business travelers. SQ can't compete on IAH-SIN corporate traffic if they don't have more attractive travel times.

The routing via DME is not that far out of the way. Current routing takes about 23.5 hours IAH to SIN. The shortest connection time through NRT or PEK currently runs about 22.5 hours. Some people feel the service on SQ is worth it.

winginit wrote:

User001 wrote:

Instead of trying every which way to discredit such a route, why don't we just let SQ make the decision and let SQ get on with it? They are big boys, I'm sure they know what they are doing!

When it comes to long-haul flying though, do they? Do they know what they're doing? Remember this article from late last year?

Our main takeaway from the briefing is that SIA’s future is grim if it doesn’t change the way it do business. The days of Singapore and SIA being the long-haul hub for the ASEAN region is over,” Aziz said.

In particular, he highlighted that SIA’s long-haul routes have been almost consistently loss-making since FY09 as its competitors have refined their strategy and successfully established themselves into SIA’s markets.

That being the case, can we really trust that they know what they're doing?

There was a thread on this. One analyst from Maybank said that, it got reposted by Yahoo and on lots of forums, not just this one... How easy it is to spread possible misinformation these days. I for one at not convinced. No other source has claimed SQ's long haul network has been consistently unprofittable and I would question the possible biases of that Maybank analyst.. a Malaysian bank (competing vested interests and stakeholders?).

With that said SQ has never posted a loss for any year since they've been listed in the early 80s. Their financials are all on the net like any other public-listed company.

So they probably have some clue about what they're doing...

I hear competing reports about MAN. But the fact that SQ is keeping it suggests loads arent too bad or it'd have gone to Scoot or been axed like GRU.

TWA772LR wrote:

What makes MAN a more attractive city than HKG, ZRH, or even MAD and BCN? Not being pissy, just wondering.

Less longhaul competition.

And its now out on routesonline fron 30th October

And here it is from SQ;

Singapore Airlines to fly direct to Manchester

Thanks
ThomasCook

SQ052 SIN0235 – 0900MAN1015 – 1435IAH 77W x14
SQ051 IAH1915 – 1005+1MAN1135 – 0820+1SIN 77W x25

DME reduced to 4 times a week

SQ362 SIN0025 – 0630DME 77W x357
SQ361 DME1455 – 0625+1SIN 77W x357

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... es-in-w16/

Anyone else notice the n/s SFO service with the A350?

Does anyone know what will happen with MUC? Will it become a terminator 77W flight? Cause i think the 4 class 77W is a bit of overkill for MUC

qf789 wrote:

SQ052 SIN0235 – 0900MAN1015 – 1435IAH 77W x14
SQ051 IAH1915 – 1005+1MAN1135 – 0820+1SIN 77W x25

DME reduced to 4 times a week

SQ362 SIN0025 – 0630DME 77W x357
SQ361 DME1455 – 0625+1SIN 77W x357

I wonder if this is related to the Transaero shutdown. It used to be a codeshare with heavy reliance on Russian passengers. And with oil down and Russian economy in a dump, was Transaero shutdown the final straw?

In the SQ press release linked above by Thomascook, its 5xweekly and not daily. Any ideas which days will be dropped?

Encouraging to (finally!) see long haul expansion at SQ to slowly catch up after so many years of stagnant growth in that area! DUS, CBR, WLG, SFO non-stops, double daily LAX and now this new innovative route!

Can't help but think having it 5x weekly may hurt the profitability of this route instead of daily which would give more flexibility? Cathay and Hainan have good load factors so far up to the end of the year apparently, so there's scope for more expansion eventually I would think!

Luxair747SP wrote:

Does anyone know what will happen with MUC? Will it become a terminator 77W flight? Cause i think the 4 class 77W is a bit of overkill for MUC

MUC continues to be served daily.

'With the launch of the Singapore-Manchester-Houston service, existing Moscow-Houston and Munich-Manchester services will be suspended, from 30 October 2016. Both Munich and Moscow will continue to be served, however, on a non-stop basis to and from Singapore. Services to Munich will be operated daily, while services to Moscow will be operated four times weekly. '

I'm assuming the 77W stays on both DME and MUC routes as well.

chiraagnt wrote:

Luxair747SP wrote:

Does anyone know what will happen with MUC? Will it become a terminator 77W flight? Cause i think the 4 class 77W is a bit of overkill for MUC

MUC continues to be served daily.

'With the launch of the Singapore-Manchester-Houston service, existing Moscow-Houston and Munich-Manchester services will be suspended, from 30 October 2016. Both Munich and Moscow will continue to be served, however, on a non-stop basis to and from Singapore. Services to Munich will be operated daily, while services to Moscow will be operated four times weekly. '

I'm assuming the 77W stays on both DME and MUC routes as well.

Thanks! I think MUC would be a perfect 350 destination ( just like AMS )

DolphinAir747 wrote:

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

IAH-SIN passenger demand is from the oil industry, and also shipping interests. The Port of Houston is the largest port in the US based on tonnage, and there is a lot of port related business with Singapore. That said, oil traffic is the biggest contributor. When oil prices come back, SQ wants to be ready and capture that traffic.

But why would these business passengers take a long detour on SQ versus a much quicker flight via an American or Asian hub? Time is money for business travelers. SQ can't compete on IAH-SIN corporate traffic if they don't have more attractive travel times.

SQ have operated the SIN-IAH route (via DME) for years at this stage. If people weren't flying it, it wouldn't be around still.

AngMoh wrote:

qf789 wrote:

SQ052 SIN0235 – 0900MAN1015 – 1435IAH 77W x14
SQ051 IAH1915 – 1005+1MAN1135 – 0820+1SIN 77W x25

DME reduced to 4 times a week

SQ362 SIN0025 – 0630DME 77W x357
SQ361 DME1455 – 0625+1SIN 77W x357

I wonder if this is related to the Transaero shutdown. It used to be a codeshare with heavy reliance on Russian passengers. And with oil down and Russian economy in a dump, was Transaero shutdown the final straw?

Ncfc99 wrote:

In the SQ press release linked above by Thomascook, its 5xweekly and not daily. Any ideas which days will be dropped?

As quoted above, MAN will operate daily except for Monday and Thursday (Tuesday and Friday on the return) and DME will operate daily except for Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.

IAHWorldflyer wrote:

IAH-SIN passenger demand is from the oil industry, and also shipping interests. The Port of Houston is the largest port in the US based on tonnage, and there is a lot of port related business with Singapore. That said, oil traffic is the biggest contributor. When oil prices come back, SQ wants to be ready and capture that traffic.

Actually when it comes to Singapore lower oil prices aren't necessarily bad. Singapore is Asia's largest oil refinery and petro-chemical manufacturing hub which means cheap oil creates more demand. The biggest problem for the Singapore refinery and petro-chemical industry is that oil companies have been building plants in the U.S. and will have less need for Singapore's plants.

Cipango wrote:

AngMoh wrote:

qf789 wrote:

SQ052 SIN0235 – 0900MAN1015 – 1435IAH 77W x14
SQ051 IAH1915 – 1005+1MAN1135 – 0820+1SIN 77W x25

DME reduced to 4 times a week

SQ362 SIN0025 – 0630DME 77W x357
SQ361 DME1455 – 0625+1SIN 77W x357

I wonder if this is related to the Transaero shutdown. It used to be a codeshare with heavy reliance on Russian passengers. And with oil down and Russian economy in a dump, was Transaero shutdown the final straw?

Ncfc99 wrote:

In the SQ press release linked above by Thomascook, its 5xweekly and not daily. Any ideas which days will be dropped?

As quoted above, MAN will operate daily except for Monday and Thursday (Tuesday and Friday on the return) and DME will operate daily except for Wednesday, Friday and Sunday.

I wondered what the x14 and x25 was all about. Thanks Cipango, makes sense now.

chiraagnt wrote:

Encouraging to (finally!) see long haul expansion at SQ to slowly catch up after so many years of stagnant growth in that area! DUS, CBR, WLG, SFO non-stops, double daily LAX and now this new innovative route!

Can't help but think having it 5x weekly may hurt the profitability of this route instead of daily which would give more flexibility? Cathay and Hainan have good load factors so far up to the end of the year apparently, so there's scope for more expansion eventually I would think!

I think it was mentioned up thread that SQ would use the 77W in part due to cargo, but with only x5 weekly it can't be too much of an issue. Maybe it will change to a A359 when they have a few more and then go daily.

User001 wrote:

But the fact is they are still flying.

I'm not interested in the financials, I'm just bewildered why some seem so bewildered that SQ have supposedly decided that the new routing is the better option for them and going to start the route, and that Manchester is some yield and load black hole?

It's more the fact that people thousands of miles away are questioning a Manchester route, when said airport is 24.1 million passengers strong, 2 A380 per day, will be first UK airport to get US pre border customs, 15 foreign long haul airlines (and growing) and soon to be hub carrier with VS and BE, Home to over 100 based aircraft, yet the prospect of a Houston route is just bonkers?!?

No one doubts the overall viability of longhaul service from MAN. I'm just saying that intercontinental tag-on flights are extremely expensive to operate, which is why there are so few left in the world. It's extremely poor aircraft utilization, given that the aircraft will spend 24 hours more in MAN than if it just did SIN-MAN-SIN. If MAN-IAH is a large and important market, a UA 767 would be a much more efficient and economical way to serve it. I can confidently tell you that if anyone at UA suggested launching a very long intercontinental tag-on flight with such poor asset utilization, they would be laughed at immediately.

Anyways, good luck to SQ, hopefully this means a lot of empty F seats for Krisflyer award redemptions.

This is a great addition for those wanting to from IAH to MAN. And now with UA codesharing and Star Alliance, perhaps this flight can attract a few passengers. However SQ generally is expensive, and for passengers going to MAN, the fare has to be competitive at least with the 1 stop options on BA, UA or DL or AA. Last time PIA operated MAN to IAH, but they had rights only once a week and with additional security issues, the flight was discontinued only after few months of startup.

And those who are wondering if tag-ons make senses, SQ primary objective is to serve IAH and MAN from SIN, IAH to MAN is just extra. SIN to IAH cannot be served with a nonstop, 1 stop is the only option (at least now) and SQ sees revenue in the IAH market (oil is stabilizing, plus the port market is huge, probably bigger than the oil traffic itself).

hohd wrote:

with UA codesharing and Star Alliance, perhaps this flight can attract a few passengers.

Again, UA doesn't codeshare with SQ, and it seems unlikely that they would start now unless something has changed.

14:25 is a busy arrival time for Terminal D in Houston. They will be adding early afternoon passenger flow into immigration with AF, BA, and LH arriving just ahead of them. I do like the the 8:20am arrival into SIN. It's a good differentiation for SQ, because if you take a connection west bound through Asia, you usually arrive into SIN in the middle of the night.
And it was recently covered on this board that UA and SQ will be doing very limited code sharing on certain flights.

winginit wrote:

Again, UA doesn't codeshare with SQ, and it seems unlikely that they would start now unless something has changed.

Errmmm... announced recently

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... july-2016/

All from Houston.

Well it seems there are some posters who would rather continue the back handed comments that insinuate Manchester can't support premium cabins, or that this route is somehow doomed to fail.

Meanwhile, SQ have put the route for sale so clearly have more hope than the armchair CEO's that refuse to have their myths busted.

Oh, and as for the extra long routing, SIN-MAN-IAH is like for like flight time wise with SIN-DME-IAH according to the SQ schedule, and IAH-MAN-SIN only 20 minutes longer than IAH-DME-SIN (pretty much nothing in the grand schem of things), so that's another myth busted.

I for one celebrate the positives rather than what the doomsday preachers spout.

I'm looking forward to this flight. I'm hoping for a bit better transit process at MAN than at DME.

David_itl wrote:

winginit wrote:

Again, UA doesn't codeshare with SQ, and it seems unlikely that they would start now unless something has changed.

Errmmm... announced recently

http://www.routesonline.com/news/38/air ... july-2016/

All from Houston.

Ah. I stand corrected. Something has indeed changed then.

The bottomline is that, for much of its existence SIN-DME-IAH was a ghost town with mediocre load factors. I am not sure how changing it to SIN-MAN-IAH will change anything.

With a 2:30 AM departure out of SIN, you have good inbound connections from BKK and DPS. But SGN, CGK, MNL and KUL have more than 3 hours of layover. Also with IAH getting a direct link to NZ, opportunities from Australia/NZ have all but evaporated. SIN-IAH O&D or for that matter MAN-IAH has not grown much and the oil industry is in a low phase. Given these factors I am still skeptical about the viability of this flight.

SATexan wrote:

SIN-IAH O&D or for that matter MAN-IAH has not grown much and the oil industry is in a low phase. Given these factors I am still skeptical about the viability of this flight.

The 3 class 77W holds 278 passengers. Currrently the MAN-SIN gets between 130 and 160 passengers per flight. This sector "suffers" as it's got a European tag-on. If SQ attracts 100 passengers going SIN-IAH then then you are talking full aircraft leaving MAN and likewise a full aircraft leaving SIN. On the middle sector, if the MAN-IAH sector is around 49.000 passengers a year then we are talking about 100 passengers per flight So it gets to IAH with 200 passengers or about 72% loads. Yes loads don't automatically equate to generating high yield but with potential opportunities beneath the passenger decks for cargo going MAN-IAH-MAN as well as the SIN-IAH and SIN-MAN sectors then there should be scope for the route to turn a tidy profit

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Anyways, good luck to SQ, hopefully this means a lot of empty F seats for Krisflyer award redemptions.

You sure do seem irrationally upset by this route. You have basically whined about it the entire thread. I think you have made your concerns well known to everyone 10-15 times. Get off the ledge guy because it is happening and I'm worried what that is going to do to your sanity.

MAN has traditionally provided oil and gas traffic anyway. It's close to some of Europe's bigger petrochemical and oil refinery sites and also has plenty of engineering support companies in the area.

There's a reason why BE offer so many flights MAN-ABZ per day. Manchester is a convenient place to transfer flights away from the busy hubs and also generates its own relevant traffic.

I wouldn't dismiss yields either. Sometimes a little bit of price comparison throws up odd results, like the premium fares ex-LHR on similar routes being lower than from MAN. That only really happens when cabins are selling. With Russia being in the economic toilet at the moment SQ is being proactive and chasing potential new sources of revenue, and they don't just throw darts at a map. their intelligence must point to this route working,

Fantastic news for guys like me who live within driving distance of Houston and like to take their family to Asia on holiday. It just gives us a second way to get to Asia on the best carrier in Y there is. And fares should be pretty competitive on both routes now that we have 9 departures weekly rather than 5. Only bad news is that IAH-MAN-SIN doesn't get into SIN at as advantageous a time as the DME flight for purposes of connections, but hey...you can't win 'em all.

aaexecplat wrote:

Fantastic news for guys like me who live within driving distance of Houston and like to take their family to Asia on holiday. It just gives us a second way to get to Asia on the best carrier in Y there is. And fares should be pretty competitive on both routes now that we have 9 departures weekly rather than 5. Only bad news is that IAH-MAN-SIN doesn't get into SIN at as advantageous a time as the DME flight for purposes of connections, but hey...you can't win 'em all.

It remained at 5x weekly instead of 9x weekly. SQ is axing DME-IAH flights. 9x weekly into IAH might be unfeasible for a one stop carrier like SQ to offer favorable connections. High expectations of this route though I would think that it's a A359 route. Maybe the cargo demand is good along this route...

Singapore Airlines to fly A350-900XWB to Moscow Domodedovo starting 27MAR17

From airlineroute.net

chiraagnt wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

Fantastic news for guys like me who live within driving distance of Houston and like to take their family to Asia on holiday. It just gives us a second way to get to Asia on the best carrier in Y there is. And fares should be pretty competitive on both routes now that we have 9 departures weekly rather than 5. Only bad news is that IAH-MAN-SIN doesn't get into SIN at as advantageous a time as the DME flight for purposes of connections, but hey...you can't win 'em all.

It remained at 5x weekly instead of 9x weekly. SQ is axing DME-IAH flights. 9x weekly into IAH might be unfeasible for a one stop carrier like SQ to offer favorable connections. High expectations of this route though I would think that it's a A359 route. Maybe the cargo demand is good along this route...

Yeah. I noticed late last night. Looks like SQ first loaded the new MAN flights but left the DME-IAH segments on the schedule, only to remove the DME-IAH later on. So yes...not thing has changed other than flight times (for the IAH-SIN) and the stopover (DME to MAN). In my case, this actually caused a rebook and on the outbound a slight problem we will have to figure out...

Pbb152 wrote:

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Anyways, good luck to SQ, hopefully this means a lot of empty F seats for Krisflyer award redemptions.

You sure do seem irrationally upset by this route. You have basically whined about it the entire thread. I think you have made your concerns well known to everyone 10-15 times. Get off the ledge guy because it is happening and I'm worried what that is going to do to your sanity.

Yeah, he seems a bit overly annoyed at this, not certain why. SQ's management seems to do a fairly good job of running one of the world's top rated carriers, I think I will defer to their knowledge of the airline biz. IAH must be doing something right or SQ would have bailed years ago.

Loving the new moves by SQ. I have taken SQ61 via DME a couple of times, but MAN makes more sence as IAH-DME was notorious for low load. ANyone know what equipment will be used? It is 77W without P/E on SQ61/62 right now.

Thank you!

F/E

SATexan wrote:

The bottomline is that, for much of its existence SIN-DME-IAH was a ghost town with mediocre load factors.

This is undeniably true. For those who haven't seen them, T100 showed a flown full year DMEIAH 2015 load factor (non directionalized average) of 58%, dipping as though as 46% in April and September. Virtually anything would be an improvement over that.

winginit wrote:

SATexan wrote:

The bottomline is that, for much of its existence SIN-DME-IAH was a ghost town with mediocre load factors.

This is undeniably true. For those who haven't seen them, T100 showed a flown full year DMEIAH 2015 load factor (non directionalized average) of 58%, dipping as though as 46% in April and September. Virtually anything would be an improvement over that.

Given the two stop nature and need to sell European capacity be that Manchester, Moscow or indeed anywhere else in addition to the Houston local traffic - Half load plus some intermediate traffic perhaps 15% uplift and a nice belly of cargo is all you expect !

Singapore clearly believe Manchester - Houston may generate rather more intermediate traffic over Moscow !

DolphinAir747 wrote:

But the yield on SIN-IAH won't be great given the circuitous routing. Just like the ME3 took a lot of business traffic on SIN-GRU with shorter travel times than SQ's flight. MAN-IAH will be a very, very costly "happy by-product." Why is SQ fixated on serving IAH? Unless they can route IAH via an Asian city on the direct route (ICN, PVG, etc.) it would seem best to axe IAH. SIN-MAN should be able to survive as an A359 flight without a tag.

In fact, SQ codeshare on all BR operated flights to North America ex-SIN via TPE: SIN-TPE-LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK,YVR, YYC... except IAH.

It is not entirely clear why SQ insist on flying to IAH on its own metal.

I have noticed that the IAH-SIN fares are lower than say SFO-SIN. I think SQ will have good bargains on the IAH-MAN leg to pull pax away from BA. BA has two daily to IAH from LHR. I can see some folks in the UK doing an LHR-MAN-IAH (or just drive or take train to MAN) if SQ can attract with low fares and of course SQ's service and product (SQ's Y product is probably better than BA's premium Y). This could work out much better for SQ than DME. DME in winter months is like a sauna. They keep the airport so hot.

Now that UA and SQ are finally cooperating, is ORD in the future? Can route via Asia or non-stop. ORD-SIN via Europe, especially low-yielding AMS, seems to to work from Chicago.

Nonstop, via HKG, KIX, ICN, OSL?

Europe seems not to work from ORD. I put OSL in as there is no service on the route.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

No one doubts the overall viability of longhaul service from MAN. I'm just saying that intercontinental tag-on flights are extremely expensive to operate, which is why there are so few left in the world. It's extremely poor aircraft utilization, given that the aircraft will spend 24 hours more in MAN than if it just did SIN-MAN-SIN.

All SQ routes to the U.S. are intercontinental tag-ons as nonstop service is either impossible or uneconomic considering the length of nonstop flights in those markets.

Also, I don't understand your comments re "extremely poor aircraft utilization" and spending 24 hours more in MAN etc. MAN is a brief intermediate stop on the new SIN-MAN-IAH route, and turnaround time at IAH is less than 5 hours. Where do you see the extremely poor utilization? It's much better than many other longhaul routes where aircraft sometimes spend all day parked at the point of turnaround.

User001 wrote:

MAN is also getting US pre clearance around 2018/2019, so, means the flight can clear customs at Manchester in time too.

How would that work for transiting customers who only have less than hour when you factor in getting off the aircraft and re-boarding?