It appears SQ are considering a small top-up order for more A359LRs in order to serve a 3rd ULH destination. The plans are ‘firm’. No indication if they would be new orders or conversions from the existing order.

Also of interest:

- 779s will replace 77Ws, which lessens the case for an A35K order
- a new First class is in the concept stage for the 779s.

Let the debate get rolling!


http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/t ... long-range

My bet is ORD.

GRU?

MalevTU134 wrote:

GRU?

Doubtful that Sao Paulo is within 19 hours flying time from Singapore. Wonderful if it could be flown nonstop but the third ULH from SIA is probably in the USA.

Routes that actually need the A359ULR's range and have the premium demand to sustain a A359 filled with only premium seats are few. Obvious West coast US and NYC aside, the only locations I can think of that have such a combination are ORD and IAH. Of those, I think IAH gets the pick as there are likely more corporate connections due to energy sector, while SIN-ORD might be a higher volume market that should be reachable with the not-so-dense configured 4-class 779s later on. Pretty interesting how both CX and SQ have elected to put F on their 779s when conventional wisdom dictates that's a bad idea..

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

jfk777 wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

GRU?

Doubtful that Sao Paulo is within 19 hours flying time from Singapore. Wonderful if it could be flown nonstop but the third ULH from SIA is probably in the USA.

360 nm further from SIN than is EWR, and virtually unaffected by ETOPS if they get ETOPS240 certified...

http://gc.kls2.com/cgi-bin/gc?PATH=Sin- ... &ETOPS=240

IF it gets flown, I guess it would sure qualify as the flight with the longest over-water segment...

I read the article... it does not say anywhere that a follow up order is upcoming. They have 7 on order which is sufficient for a third destination. The 779 replacing the 77w does not reduce the chances for the a35k since growth above the present a359 fleet is always a possibility.

ORD or IAH would be my bet. Also the 779's will introduce yet another J seat according to AusBT

ap305 wrote:

I read the article... it does not say anywhere that a follow up order is upcoming. They have 7 on order which is sufficient for a third destination.

Exactly. They already have enough frames on order to serve 3 ULR destinations so I don't understand where the rumor for additional frames comes from.
I've been saying GRU since before they even ordered the A359LR's so I'm going to stick with that

I'm thinking YYZ as well. IAD a maybe too.

MalevTU134 wrote:

GRU?

ain`t gonna happen! 1- they are too pricey, 2- could not win over the ME3 fame...

planemanofnz wrote:

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

The third largest metro in the US/Canada is Chicago by far. I'm pretty sure Toronto is even smaller than Dallas and Houston.

OlympicATH wrote:

The third largest metro in the US/Canada is Chicago by far. I'm pretty sure Toronto is even smaller than Dallas and Houston.

Sorry - you are right - I was looking at just the city limit populations.

Cheers,

C.

andrefranca wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

GRU?

ain`t gonna happen! 1- they are too pricey, 2- could not win over the ME3 fame...

Well, they are down to ME2 in Brazil since EY pulled out of GRU. And SQ and its sister/daughter companies can offer far more destinations in China and Japan than EK, QR, TK and ET. Pricey? Sometimes but not always. However, this would be a J-heavy flight, not primarily aimed at the bargain hunters.

OlympicATH wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

The third largest metro in the US/Canada is Chicago by far. I'm pretty sure Toronto is even smaller than Dallas and Houston.

you're right that the 3rd largest in US/Canada is Chicago. But Toronto ranks higher than both Dallas and Houston, which are coincidentally 1 and 2 places behind Toronto respectively!

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/lar ... erica.html

Singapore Airlines flies SFO with regular A350s today.

These are 7300-8500NM ranges from SIN..



LIM would be 10300NM
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=SIN-LIM&R=7340NM%40SIN,+8500NM%40SIN%0d%0a&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

planemanofnz wrote:

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

YYZ is a real possibility for the reasons given above. It definitely fills a gap in AC's Asian landscape.

keesje wrote:

Singapore Airlines flies SFO with regular A350s today.

These are 7300-8500NM ranges from SIN..



LIM would be 10300NM
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=SIN-LIM&R=7340NM%40SIN,+8500NM%40SIN%0d%0a&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

But then...SIN-LIM would practically overfly the largest market in Asia from Peru - namely Japan. IF it is a South American city, anything else than GRU is out of the question.

I do hope SQ will take a look at GRU. Opening GRU would open up plenty of secondary cities in East Asia with 1-stops to Brazil. Will the 359ULR be nonstop both ways or does it need to make a stop westbound? I don't think SQ will configure the flight as J class only for GRU.

MIA ? A flight SIN-GRU would probably fly over JNB.

Or any other place on earth, depending on winds

MalevTU134 wrote:

keesje wrote:

Singapore Airlines flies SFO with regular A350s today.

These are 7300-8500NM ranges from SIN..



LIM would be 10300NM
http://www.gcmap.com/map?P=SIN-LIM&R=7340NM%40SIN,+8500NM%40SIN%0d%0a&MS=wls&MR=1800&MX=720x360&PM=*

But then...SIN-LIM would practically overfly the largest market in Asia from Peru - namely Japan. IF it is a South American city, anything else than GRU is out of the question.

Totally agree with GRU. Our little sphere is a funny place. Would you have guessed that EZE is 67nm closer than GRU. No business market there but nice entry point to South America.
My guess is Toronto actually. If only MEX wasn‘t hot and high.

andrefranca wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

GRU?

ain`t gonna happen! 1- they are too pricey, 2- could not win over the ME3 fame...

People who are willing to pay those fares would rather fly non-stop. Just saying.
You may have a point regarding connections traffic to the rest of Asia but are under-estimating the O&D between GRU and SIN.

mdavies06 wrote:

I do hope SQ will take a look at GRU. Opening GRU would open up plenty of secondary cities in East Asia with 1-stops to Brazil. Will the 359ULR be nonstop both ways or does it need to make a stop westbound? I don't think SQ will configure the flight as J class only for GRU.

There is no jetstream over that part of the world so westbound/eastbound should be about the same. If you look at SIN-JNB/JNB-SIN or GRU-JNB/JNB-GRU for example, they take about the same time, on the day.

ap305 wrote:

I read the article... it does not say anywhere that a follow up order is upcoming. They have 7 on order which is sufficient for a third destination.

The implication being that they are planning on two frequencies to either NYC or LAX?

BaconButty wrote:

ap305 wrote:

I read the article... it does not say anywhere that a follow up order is upcoming. They have 7 on order which is sufficient for a third destination.

The implication being that they are planning on two frequencies to either NYC or LAX?

That would indeed be excellent news if true.

BaconButty wrote:

ap305 wrote:

I read the article... it does not say anywhere that a follow up order is upcoming. They have 7 on order which is sufficient for a third destination.

The implication being that they are planning on two frequencies to either NYC or LAX?

The article explicitly says it's a third route in addition to NYC and LAX:

Speaking to reporters in North Charleston, South Carolina, on Monday, Mr Goh also revealed that SIA is eyeing a third route on which to deploy a new ultra-long-range (ULR) aircraft it will receive in the second half of this year.

This is in addition to the relaunch of non-stop flights to New York and Los Angeles with this new aircraft.

When asked about plans for the new Airbus 350-900ULR – which SIA will be the first airline to operate – Mr Goh said there is potentially one more destination that the carrier has “firm plans” for. However, he declined to reveal what the destination could be.

I’d love to see YYZ, with it being my home town and all, and it is certainly a city on the rise, but with that being said, it has one huge disadvantage... it’s not in the US. For better or for worse, Canada just doesn’t hav the business muscle that the states has that drives yields. While Toronto is the hub for business in Canada, Chicago or DC have huge networks of companies and that may provide better yields. With that being said, I am purely speculating based on historical data, the times are certainly changing, and for the better.

Doubtful that it would be YYZ. For all the Asia-YYZ routes now, except for Tokyo, all other routes are heavily VFR. There is not sufficient high yield business traffic between Toronto and Asia. I would think it's ORD or IAD.

raylee67 wrote:

Doubtful that it would be YYZ. For all the Asia-YYZ routes now, except for Tokyo, all other routes are heavily VFR. There is not sufficient high yield business traffic between Toronto and Asia. I would think it's ORD or IAD.

Asia does extremely well from Toronto, and from what I have seen, can be extremely high yielding. This summer, there will be 21 weekly flights to China from Toronto, with no route operating less than daily. (2x PEK, 2x PVG, 1x CAN daily) as well as 3x daily HKG, daily HND, daily TPE and 2x daily ICN, 2x daily DEL and 5x weekly BOM. Don’t sell Toronto short, the lowest frequency flight to Asia is 5x weekly, not half bad. If they weren’t pulling high yields, they wouldn’t all operate at such frequency.

Does that mean SIN would work, no, of course not, but the prescident IS certainly there. Realistically, it probably would do reasonably well, but it doesn’t just have to do well, it has to do better than say ORD, which has less competition, and is a larger city.

I will go with GRU too. ORD, IAH, and YYZ all sound like good ideas, but I'm sticking with it!

honestly still a bit surprising there is no SQ presence in Canada. is this a bilateral thing? surely they could fly YVR with their current fleet?

[list=][/list]

wenders825 wrote:

I will go with GRU too. ORD, IAH, and YYZ all sound like good ideas, but I'm sticking with it!

honestly still a bit surprising there is no SQ presence in Canada. is this a bilateral thing? surely they could fly YVR with their current fleet?

No bilateral issues, it’s just a question of demand and hugely long flights. Until recently, there wasn’t really a type that could do the routes economically.

Sightseer wrote:

The article explicitly says it's a third route in addition to NYC and LAX:

Sure - what I mean is if the current 7 frames on order are already allocated to the two known destinations* then one must be served twice daily.

Re-reading the article though, as @ap305 pointed out, the "top up order" the OP infers is not mentioned there, so the third destination may be serviced within the fleet of 7. Still odd though - I would have thought SQ would have known where they were sending them. I mean, an airline might order 100 narrowbodies without a concrete plan for every frame, but a specialised Aircraft (in fit-out at least) like this? Or maybe they had "firm plans" for it all along. Intrigued to see what it is, the figures I have seen suggest that the third must lucrative ULH destination would be a second New York frequency.

* Cities if not Airports.

whywhyzee wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

Doubtful that it would be YYZ. For all the Asia-YYZ routes now, except for Tokyo, all other routes are heavily VFR. There is not sufficient high yield business traffic between Toronto and Asia. I would think it's ORD or IAD.

Asia does extremely well from Toronto, and from what I have seen, can be extremely high yielding. This summer, there will be 21 weekly flights to China from Toronto, with no route operating less than daily. (2x PEK, 2x PVG, 1x CAN daily) as well as 3x daily HKG, daily HND, daily TPE and 2x daily ICN, 2x daily DEL and 5x weekly BOM. Don’t sell Toronto short, the lowest frequency flight to Asia is 5x weekly, not half bad. If they weren’t pulling high yields, they wouldn’t all operate at such frequency.
.

Oh I know the frequency, I am a veteran on YYZ-Asia since 1995 when there was no non-stop flight and CP was still around. At least 2 to 3 times a year since then. Have been doing that for 20+ years. Now I fly mostly between YYZ and Asia on CX Business Class, but sometimes on BR Premium Econ or AC Business Class. The flights are almost always full, even Business Class, but those are all VFR passengers. I can tell that business travelers are about 10% of Business Class pax on Asian airlines. AC does better, probably 25% on Business Class are real business travelers.

While the Business Class is full, and they still command expensive tickets, you would find that the price of Business Class on non-stop YYZ-HKG is only about 50-60% of that of non-stop JFK-HKG or ORD-HKG despite distance is almost the same. I am sure the airlines are still making money on Toronto-Asia, but definitely not as much.

What I mean is that there is not sufficient business traffic between YYZ and Asia. All the routes except TYO, including Business Class cabin, is sustained by VFR traffic. And there is no VFR between Singapore and Toronto. Singapore's location is also not good for Asia-Toronto VFR connection. if you look at the demographics of Toronto, of the 7 million people in Toronto, more than 50% are NOT born in Canada, and of those, most are Asians. In descending order by % of population, Asians in Toronto are coming from China, India/Pakistan/Sri Lanka (as a group because it's difficult to tell whether a Tamil is from Sri Lanka or India, or whether a Punjabi is from India or Pakistan), Hong Kong, Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam and increasingly Philippines. Of these, only India is OK for connection at SIN, and the India-YYZ VFR market is much lower yielding that those from China, Hong Kong, Taiwan and Korea.

I'm thinking ORD and YYZ in addition to JFK/LAX. I also think SQ should consider using the standard A359 for a SIN-YVR service.

I am interested to see if CA can sustain 4 daily nonstops to SIN (2 from SFO, 2 from LAX). It seems like a lot of capacity.

BaconButty wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

The article explicitly says it's a third route in addition to NYC and LAX:

Sure - what I mean is if the current 7 frames on order are already allocated to the two known destinations* then one must be served twice daily.

Re-reading the article though, as @ap305 pointed out, the "top up order" the OP infers is not mentioned there, so the third destination may be serviced within the fleet of 7. Still odd though - I would have thought SQ would have known where they were sending them. I mean, an airline might order 100 narrowbodies without a concrete plan for every frame, but a specialised Aircraft (in fit-out at least) like this? Or maybe they had "firm plans" for it all along. Intrigued to see what it is, the figures I have seen suggest that the third must lucrative ULH destination would be a second New York frequency.

* Cities if not Airports.

SQ never confirmed that the 7 A350ULR would fly exclusively LAX/NYC. They just announced they were restarting those two routes. But everyone noted at the time of the order that 7 ULRs were more than needed and there was a lot of speculation about a third route then as well (generally the same cities being dicussed now).

aemoreira1981 wrote:

Minds can think alike! YYZ is the airport tor Canada’s major economic capital and one doesn’t need a ULR for LAX. It’s the only destination really making sense that is way beyond the range of a regular A359, although IAH is possible too.

Yeah I was also intrigued if the standard A359 could make SIN-LAX nonstop, considering UA does the route with the standard B789.

planemanofnz wrote:

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

Minds can think alike! YYZ is the airport tor Canada’s major economic capital and one doesn’t need a ULR for LAX. It’s the only destination really making sense that is way beyond the range of a regular A359, although IAH is possible too.

On other sites, I've noticed comments about a bad relationship between SQ and AC as another contributing factor to the lack of codeshare/connecting flights and the lack of a big presence for SQ in Canada. Can anyone confirm this, and indicate what that bad relationship stems from?

planemanofnz wrote:

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

Although YYZ is indeed a *A hub, AC and SQ don't exactly have the best of relationships...

SQ ran LAX and NYC from SIN with 5 x A345s. Their A345 order comprised a further 5 options, never taken up. So at one time they envisaged sufficient ULR destinations to keep 10 x A345s busy.

To date they have 7 x A359s coming, with a large number of options. I would not be at all surprised to see at least 3 option conversions for A359ULRs if the first 7 turn a good profit.

idp5601 wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

Perhaps YYZ, which is also a Star Alliance hub through AC, and the third biggest metro area in the US and Canada (after NYC and LAX).

Yields might also be better at YYZ, given the restrictions placed on the ME3 in Canada, who would likely carry some ASEAN-bound traffic.

Cheers,

C.

Although YYZ is indeed a *A hub, AC and SQ don't exactly have the best of relationships...

SQ does not have a good relationship with many *A carriers, including AC and UA. This is why I am sceptical that they would go ahead with YYZ/ORD/EWR versus JFK and possibly GRU.

BaconButty wrote:

Re-reading the article though, as @ap305 pointed out, the "top up order" the OP infers is not mentioned there, so the third destination may be serviced within the fleet of 7. Still odd though - I would have thought SQ would have known where they were sending them. I mean, an airline might order 100 narrowbodies without a concrete plan for every frame, but a specialised Aircraft (in fit-out at least) like this? Or maybe they had "firm plans" for it all along. Intrigued to see what it is, the figures I have seen suggest that the third must lucrative ULH destination would be a second New York frequency.

I suspect the "firm plans" were for LAX, NYC, SFO but the A359 is performing better than expected so now they are looking at other options. That's my guess.

JerseyFlyer wrote:

SQ ran LAX and NYC from SIN with 5 x A345s. Their A345 order comprised a further 5 options, never taken up. So at one time they envisaged sufficient ULR destinations to keep 10 x A345s busy.

This requires some context.
There was no 77W yet. The 77W made those additional A345 options obsolete.
Also SQ no longer had the A343 fleet for commonality and economies of scale. So it was clear that the A345's life would be short lived. That it lasted as long as it did, was a surprise to a lot of us.

voxkel wrote:

SQ does not have a good relationship with many *A carriers, including AC and UA. This is why I am sceptical that they would go ahead with YYZ/ORD/EWR versus JFK and possibly GRU.

Sorry but this is an old a.net myth. People assumed that just because they don't code-share there must be a bad relationship.
SQ code-shared with US Airways extensively when US was in *A. They code-share with LH. So they don't feel the need to code-share with UA or AC. Who's to say it's not UA and AC who don't feel the need to code-share with SQ? Code-share agreements are a financial relationship. Friendship has got nothing to do with it.

My reais are on GRU. SQ has served the route in the very recent past which indicates a lucrative market. The very circuitous routing via BCN and the Brazilian recession did not help. However, the route should work now with a nonstop. Lots of business traffic to SIN and the rest of Asia.

But GRU is not within range. It is too close to the antipode. If SQ is going to have another destination with the A359ULR, it's going to be one that actually benefits from a non-stop service and a heavy J demand, so it's going to be a destination they might already serve. They could just as well do a one-stop service like they already do from SFO, LAX, JFK, IAH, ARN because I'm sure the business demand from GRU to SIN is fractional.

jubguy3 wrote:

But GRU is not within range. It is too close to the antipode. If SQ is going to have another destination with the A359ULR, it's going to be one that actually benefits from a non-stop service and a heavy J demand, so it's going to be a destination they might already serve. They could just as well do a one-stop service like they already do from SFO, LAX, JFK, IAH, ARN because I'm sure the business demand from GRU to SIN is fractional.

Have you read the thread? It's been shown that GRU is marginally further than EWR, that GRU has already been flown with a stop, and argued that GRU-SIN demand is anything but fractional. Not to mention GRU- rest of Asia where SQ has faaar more destinations on offer than ME2, TK, ET and the European carriers.

MalevTU134 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

But GRU is not within range. It is too close to the antipode. If SQ is going to have another destination with the A359ULR, it's going to be one that actually benefits from a non-stop service and a heavy J demand, so it's going to be a destination they might already serve. They could just as well do a one-stop service like they already do from SFO, LAX, JFK, IAH, ARN because I'm sure the business demand from GRU to SIN is fractional.

Have you read the thread? It's been shown that GRU is marginally further than EWR, that GRU has already been flown with a stop, and argued that GRU-SIN demand is anything but fractional. Not to mention GRU- rest of Asia where SQ has faaar more destinations on offer than ME2, TK, ET and the European carriers.

GRU is 400nm further than EWR. Depending on how close EWR is to the edge of the ULR’s performance in SQ’s configuration that may not necessarily be a “marginally further” distance. That is approximately another hour in flight.

MalevTU134 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

But GRU is not within range. It is too close to the antipode. If SQ is going to have another destination with the A359ULR, it's going to be one that actually benefits from a non-stop service and a heavy J demand, so it's going to be a destination they might already serve. They could just as well do a one-stop service like they already do from SFO, LAX, JFK, IAH, ARN because I'm sure the business demand from GRU to SIN is fractional.

Have you read the thread? It's been shown that GRU is marginally further than EWR, that GRU has already been flown with a stop, and argued that GRU-SIN demand is anything but fractional. Not to mention GRU- rest of Asia where SQ has faaar more destinations on offer than ME2, TK, ET and the European carriers.

This is a strong point. SIN is a very good midway hub to connect between Africa and E. Asia due to its geographic position. I can see the same being true for flights coming from S. America.

This map only shows a couple destinations, but it illustrates a point of the connectivity potential at SIN.

Irehdna wrote:

This map only shows a couple destinations, but it illustrates a point of the connectivity potential at SIN.

Looks can be deceiving. It is actually equal distance or shorter to go via the ME or Europe hubs, especially the further northeast you go into Asia (where American hubs also become competitive distance wise).

Irehdna wrote:

This map only shows a couple destinations, but it illustrates a point of the connectivity potential at SIN.

Transiting in either the US (ex: LAX) or W. Europe (LHR, MAD) would be in most cases shorter than transiting through SIN. Now, I personally would rather do one 17-hr flight and then a 4-5 hour flight than two different 8-10 hour flights, but I think both the normal public and flght economics may disagree.

Overall yes, SIN is a better connecting point for S. America than it is for many other places, but even then it is longer than stopping through LAX or LHR.