Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
hoo8myryce
Topic Author
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:54 pm

SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:05 am

So wanted to ask for info regarding this route by the 2 carriers. Now that SQ has roughly operate this route for nearly a month (a few days short) and being in the ice cold winter time with strong headwinds, wanted to ask the experts some operation data. Since both carriers are operating different aircraft SQ with the A359 and UA with the B789, will be interesting to know if there is any advantage to either one (no need to bash one over the other). Also wanted to see how the L/F are and if there is any weight restriction for the flight heading west.
 
babastud
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:39 am

Good question, wondering myself?
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:41 am

If I am correct, the A350-900 does the flight between SIN & SFO rather well. However, I do believe that Singapore Airlines needs to limit the seats onboard the flight.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:19 am

Remember the 359 is a bit bigger and heavier. At peak winter west bound jet stream winds, both planes may take a penalty but the 789 will be smaller. UA has done very well on the route so far and I'd think SQ was doing just fine as well. The SF Bay area has loads of premium traffic going to Asia these days.
 
Sean-SAN-
Posts: 815
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2002 4:02 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:43 am

Just a quick look at the loads on UA after the SQ flight started, it doesn't seem like it had any impact on traffic. Although it might be impacting HKG-SIN.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:45 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
Remember the 359 is a bit bigger and heavier. At peak winter west bound jet stream winds, both planes may take a penalty but the 789 will be smaller. UA has done very well on the route so far and I'd think SQ was doing just fine as well. The SF Bay area has loads of premium traffic going to Asia these days.

SQ has a less dense configuration (only 1 more seat than UA's 789), so some of the penalty is "built-in" that way. Nevertheless, I've read that neither takes a penalty in the Summer and both are likely to take some sort of a penalty in the Winter. As it is, this flight is already about 1 hour longer than it was in the Summer and it will only get worse :)
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21891
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 2:01 pm

airbazar wrote:
As it is, this flight is already about 1 hour longer than it was in the Summer and it will only get worse :)


When would we expect that differential to peak? February?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
babastud
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:11 pm

DocLightning wrote:
airbazar wrote:
As it is, this flight is already about 1 hour longer than it was in the Summer and it will only get worse :)


When would we expect that differential to peak? February?


It all depends on the year, sometimes Dec, or Jan or feb or all three?
 
hoo8myryce
Topic Author
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:54 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:36 am

airbazar wrote:
SonomaFlyer wrote:
Remember the 359 is a bit bigger and heavier. At peak winter west bound jet stream winds, both planes may take a penalty but the 789 will be smaller. UA has done very well on the route so far and I'd think SQ was doing just fine as well. The SF Bay area has loads of premium traffic going to Asia these days.

SQ has a less dense configuration (only 1 more seat than UA's 789), so some of the penalty is "built-in" that way. Nevertheless, I've read that neither takes a penalty in the Summer and both are likely to take some sort of a penalty in the Winter. As it is, this flight is already about 1 hour longer than it was in the Summer and it will only get worse :)



Curious to know if anybody know how much of a penalty they take on average during this past month. (winter ops)
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Nov 23, 2016 2:02 am

With climate change and other weather shenanigans going on, the jet stream may not be as predictable. I'm a bit surprised SQ's config is that light though that should be great for passengers given its a larger aircraft.

I recall from an earlier thread, the max block off on seats for UA was predicted to be 25 or so folks in econ, can anyone confirm that number?
 
United Airline
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Nov 23, 2016 4:11 am

I wonder why SQ doesn't install first suite onboard this flight as this is a very premium heavy flight. Maybe at least 4.
 
Viscount724
Posts: 19316
Joined: Thu Oct 12, 2006 7:32 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:16 am

United Airline wrote:
I wonder why SQ doesn't install first suite onboard this flight as this is a very premium heavy flight. Maybe at least 4.


Those seats are very heavy. If not mistaken that's why the SQ A345s used on the previous EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN nonstops had no F class cabin.
 
User avatar
adamblang
Posts: 1263
Joined: Sat Jul 19, 2008 5:47 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:47 am

SonomaFlyer wrote:
I recall from an earlier thread, the max block off on seats for UA was predicted to be 25 or so folks in econ, can anyone confirm that number?

23 over the next few days on SFO-SIN. None on SIN-SFO.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24804
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Nov 23, 2016 8:15 am

hoo8myryce wrote:
Curious to know if anybody know how much of a penalty they take on average during this past month. (winter ops)


United uses seat hold backs that gets adjusted seasonally. Its scheduled to peak out at 35 for upcoming period between December - March.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Fri Nov 25, 2016 1:57 pm

SonomaFlyer wrote:
With climate change and other weather shenanigans going on, the jet stream may not be as predictable. I'm a bit surprised SQ's config is that light though that should be great for passengers given its a larger aircraft.

It's not that SQ's is light, it's that UA's is cramped. SQ has a real, long haul Premium Economy product, while UA has their domestic version of Y+.
In addition, 10-abreast on the A350 is not really feasible for a premium airlines like SQ, especially on a ULH route.
 
BobbyPSP
Posts: 345
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 12:29 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Fri Nov 25, 2016 6:49 pm

UA blocking that many seats allows a bit of spreading out for those folks. 35 seats spread around the cabin is a good amount
 
babastud
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Sat Nov 26, 2016 1:29 am

Blocking of the seats is good info, but does anyone have on yields and so on?
 
UAL916
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:53 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:14 am

Looks like Scheduled time these past couple of days has been around 18 hours for UA 1 SFO-SIN, with a flight this past Friday having taken 17hrs and 59mins.
 
hayzel777
Posts: 638
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 3:18 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:36 am

Viscount724 wrote:
United Airline wrote:
I wonder why SQ doesn't install first suite onboard this flight as this is a very premium heavy flight. Maybe at least 4.


Those seats are very heavy. If not mistaken that's why the SQ A345s used on the previous EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN nonstops had no F class cabin.


Yea, the A345s had no F cabin, it was a J only plane.
 
User avatar
intotheair
Posts: 1899
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 12:49 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:31 am

hayzel777 wrote:
Viscount724 wrote:
United Airline wrote:
I wonder why SQ doesn't install first suite onboard this flight as this is a very premium heavy flight. Maybe at least 4.


Those seats are very heavy. If not mistaken that's why the SQ A345s used on the previous EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN nonstops had no F class cabin.


Yea, the A345s had no F cabin, it was a J only plane.


Originally, the A345 had the 2-2-2 J space bed product and a 2-3-2 premium Y product called Executive Economy. Only later were the A345s converted to the all-J configuration with 100 seats in the 1-2-1 seating.
300 319 320 321 332 333 345 346 380 717 733 734 735 73G 738 739 744 752 753 762 763 772 77W 788 789 CR2 CR7 CR9 CRK Q400 E175 DC10 MD82 MD90
AA AF AS AY AZ B6 BA BR DL F9 FI GA HA KF LH MI QX SK SN SQ UA US VY WN
 
RacheyFlies
Posts: 191
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:48 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Dec 21, 2016 7:58 am

hayzel777 wrote:
Viscount724 wrote:
United Airline wrote:
I wonder why SQ doesn't install first suite onboard this flight as this is a very premium heavy flight. Maybe at least 4.


Those seats are very heavy. If not mistaken that's why the SQ A345s used on the previous EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN nonstops had no F class cabin.


Yea, the A345s had no F cabin, it was a J only plane.

And even the ULR A359 could also go only J plane.
The best plane I've flown is an A380. They were the biggest and the best than other plane I've been on. :lol:
 
User avatar
MoKa777
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2016 11:47 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Jan 03, 2017 8:13 am

TurnerJet wrote:
hayzel777 wrote:
Viscount724 wrote:

Those seats are very heavy. If not mistaken that's why the SQ A345s used on the previous EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN nonstops had no F class cabin.


Yea, the A345s had no F cabin, it was a J only plane.

And even the ULR A359 could also go only J plane.


The SQ A359 ULR is expected to have other cabin classes as well, in addition to J.
Never be proud. Always be grateful.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10197
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Jan 03, 2017 2:16 pm

MoKa777 wrote:
The SQ A359 ULR is expected to have other cabin classes as well, in addition to J.

No reason not to be configured any differently then the current A359, IMO. If the current A359 can fly the route with the current config, the ULR will too and the additional fuel capacity should get it to NYC.
Now I know that SQ and Airbus originally stated a 170 seat configuration which is significantly less than today's A359. However, a lot can still change between now and 2018. Personally I think SQ needs Y seats at competitive fares in the LAX/SFO-SIN routes. Maybe not as critical in the NYC-SIN. But they ordered 7 frames and it's clear now that for most of the year they don't need the ULR to fly SFO-SIN. This could be interesting.
 
NichCage
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2016 6:43 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:06 pm

I have a question about Singapore Airlines operations to SFO, regarding the impact on SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN.

How has SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN doing? Has it been affected in any way by the non-stop SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN flight? Also, what market does SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN serve?

Is it true that before Singapore Airlines flew SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN non-stop (when it was flown SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN) that they wanted to fly the A380-800 on the flights from SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN?
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13336
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:22 pm

airbazar wrote:
No reason not to be configured any differently then the current A359, IMO. If the current A359 can fly the route with the current config, the ULR will too and the additional fuel capacity should get it to NYC.

Not really sure what you're saying due to the double-negative, so forgive if misinterpreted.

But actually, we'll likely see that the standard A359 is the more capable bird for a given route that it can fly, even if the A359ULR is placed on it.... especially if SQ can kick the MTOW on these to 278T or so (likely won't get 280T, due to the differences incorporated; but it's not to the gear IINM, so who knows).

The disparity between a standard A359 and an A359ULR will not be anything remotely like the difference in capability between a 772ER vs a 772LR.

The -ULR is basically "just" a high-MTOW A359 with a modified fuel tank, that shorts the ZFW in order to carry the extra fuel: in essence, a flying tanker. Which is why none of the other Asian carriers have bothered with it thus far. They'll be able to do SE Asia to western N.America with a standard A359 and carry more payload. I'm guessing the same is the case with a 789.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
EK006
Posts: 81
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:34 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:27 pm

I have a question about Singapore Airlines operations to SFO, regarding the impact on SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN.

How has SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN doing? Has it been affected in any way by the non-stop SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN flight? Also, what market does SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN serve?

Is it true that before Singapore Airlines flew SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN non-stop (when it was flown SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN) that they wanted to fly the A380-800 on the flights from SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN?



As far as I am aware, SQ picks up a lot of local HKG-SFO traffic and is mainly what fills the plane with passengers for SIN as well. This is what many A.net posters have said.

SQ had planned to put the A380 on SIN-ICN-SFO as this route had more demand.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10870
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:07 am

EK006 wrote:
I have a question about Singapore Airlines operations to SFO, regarding the impact on SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN.

How has SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN doing? Has it been affected in any way by the non-stop SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN flight? Also, what market does SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN serve?

Is it true that before Singapore Airlines flew SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN non-stop (when it was flown SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN) that they wanted to fly the A380-800 on the flights from SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN?



As far as I am aware, SQ picks up a lot of local HKG-SFO traffic and is mainly what fills the plane with passengers for SIN as well. This is what many A.net posters have said.

SQ had planned to put the A380 on SIN-ICN-SFO as this route had more demand.


SIN-ICN-SFO was operated by the A380. When SQ announced the nonstop SFO flight they shifted the ICN tag to LAX but with a 77W instead of a A380, and shifted the NRT-LAX flight to a 77W (from A380) as well leaving JFK as it's sole US A380 destination.

HKG flight wasn't touched, it operates at a completely different time giving SQ passengers another option, plus I believe SQ does fairly well in the local market.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

Re: SQ/UA SFOSIN

Wed Jan 04, 2017 12:26 am

Polot wrote:
EK006 wrote:
I have a question about Singapore Airlines operations to SFO, regarding the impact on SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN.

How has SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN doing? Has it been affected in any way by the non-stop SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN flight? Also, what market does SIN-HKG-SFO & SFO-HKG-SIN serve?

Is it true that before Singapore Airlines flew SIN-SFO & SFO-SIN non-stop (when it was flown SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN) that they wanted to fly the A380-800 on the flights from SIN-ICN-SFO & SFO-ICN-SIN?



As far as I am aware, SQ picks up a lot of local HKG-SFO traffic and is mainly what fills the plane with passengers for SIN as well. This is what many A.net posters have said.

SQ had planned to put the A380 on SIN-ICN-SFO as this route had more demand.


SIN-ICN-SFO was operated by the A380. When SQ announced the nonstop SFO flight they shifted the ICN tag to LAX but with a 77W instead of a A380, and shifted the NRT-LAX flight to a 77W (from A380) as well leaving JFK as it's sole US A380 destination.

HKG flight wasn't touched, it operates at a completely different time giving SQ passengers another option, plus I believe SQ does fairly well in the local market.


Not sure if this is correct.

Both SIN-ICN-SFO as well as SIN-HKG-SFO were 77W. In the past, in the winter season only, one of these flights was substituted for a A380 which I believe was pulled from SIN-FRA-JFK (that one was normally A380 but some years downgraded to 77W for winter season). As far as I remember, the A380 was put on SIN-HKG-SFO.

With the non-stop, SIN-ICN-SFO was changed to SIN-ICN-LAX (with a completely different timing) and remains 77W. At the same time SIN-NRT-LAX was downgraded from A380 to 77W. As originally the timing of SIN-ICN-SFO and SIN-NRT-LAX both had a morning departure, the new SIN-ICN-LAX is changed to a departure in the middle of the night.

SIN-xxx-LAX used to have 3 daily flights: first there was a SIN-LAX non-stop on A345. Then there was SIN-NRT-LAX which was first 747 and then A380. Finally there was SIN-TPE-LAX (SQ007 crash) which was first 747 and then 77W. I believe this one was dropped when SIN-NRT-LAX went to A380.
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos