Singapore Airlines to resume non-stop SIN-EWR from 11 October 2018

qf789 · Wed May 30, 2018 4:08 am

Singapore Airlines will resume non-stop flights from Singapore to New York (EWR) from 11 October 2018 using A350-900ULR initially 3 weekly, going to daily from 18 October 2018

The Aircraft will be configured with 67 Business Class seats and 94 Premium Economy seats

Schedule is as follows

Up to 27 October

SQ22 SIN2335-600+1EWR
SQ21 EWR1045-1730+1SIN

From 28 October

SQ22 SIN40-530EWR
SQ21 EWR945-1715+1SIN

Los Angeles and a third destination will follow at a later date

Flights will be on sale from 31 May 2018

https://www.ausbt.com.au/singapore-airl ... ource=hero

https://www.airlineratings.com/news/sin ... st-flight/

LAXintl · Wed May 30, 2018 4:11 am

Effective Oct 11th.

SQ22 SIN-EWR 2335-0600+1

SQ23 EWR-SIN 1045-1730+1

A350-900ULR

SIA to relaunch direct flights to New York on Oct 11
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compan ... -on-oct-11

=

BWIAirport · Wed May 30, 2018 4:38 am

Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Slash787 · Wed May 30, 2018 4:50 am

BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

FA9295 · Wed May 30, 2018 4:51 am

Slash787 wrote:
BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

BNA...?! Pshh... DTW deserves it more than anyone else!

On a serious note though, my bets are all on IAH...

716131 · Wed May 30, 2018 4:55 am

OMG, Congrats to SQ, so excited and can't wait! What will the A359ULR Configuration looks like?

MalevTU134 · Wed May 30, 2018 5:06 am

BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

There was a whole thread on guessing this 3rd ULH destination a good month or so back, when SQ announced there would be a 3rd destination. Back then I guessed, and I still guess: GRU.

MalevTU134 · Wed May 30, 2018 5:07 am

Slash787 wrote:
BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

Heard of sarcasm?...

Amchi757300 · Wed May 30, 2018 5:14 am

BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Slash787 · Wed May 30, 2018 6:19 am

Why din't they already add LAX? Can't the A359 non ULR do it?

aemoreira1981 · Wed May 30, 2018 6:33 am

United has shown that a standard Dreamliner can make it to Singapore both from LAX and SFO nonstop. One likely needs four A359ULRs to cover the service to Newark (3 in the air and 1 standby). I suspect that LAX will be the other destination. Peak usage would be 5 planes.

Caryjack · Wed May 30, 2018 6:35 am

Slash787 wrote:
Why din't they already add LAX? Can't the A359 non ULR do it?

Perhaps, but far-and-away, the closest city to SIN is SEA. :wave:

MalevTU134 · Wed May 30, 2018 6:44 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
United has shown that a standard Dreamliner can make it to Singapore both from LAX and SFO nonstop. One likely needs four A359ULRs to cover the service to Newark (3 in the air and 1 standby). I suspect that LAX will be the other destination. Peak usage would be 5 planes.

Why would they need 3 in the air? It's a daily flight of around 18 hours each way. 2.25-2.5 aircraft (including the spare) is enough.

And LAX is a no-brainer, since SQ already announced it.

JerseyFlyer · Wed May 30, 2018 7:19 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
United has shown that a standard Dreamliner can make it to Singapore both from LAX and SFO nonstop. One likely needs four A359ULRs to cover the service to Newark (3 in the air and 1 standby). I suspect that LAX will be the other destination. Peak usage would be 5 planes.

They have 7 ULRs on order

CarlosSi · Wed May 30, 2018 7:24 am

FA9295 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

BNA...?! Pshh... DTW deserves it more than anyone else! .

Ahh you beat me to it!! I suppose that joke was low-hanging fruit anyways. The longest of ULH routes has returned/will return soon. There's no longer route is there? For a while there was a lot of seat-taking from QF8 to EK's Panama flight, Qatar's flight to New Zealand...

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 7:36 am

Slash787 wrote:
Why din't they already add LAX? Can't the A359 non ULR do it?

Yes, but apparently they want the 67J that it offers.

What's interesting though, is that they could always subfleet a few standard A359s in a special high-J config, and use them for the likes of LAX and SFO, thus freeing up a -ULR if they ever needed it.

No indication that that's currently what they're planning, but they definitely have the ability to.

ap305 · Wed May 30, 2018 7:42 am

Slash787 wrote:
Why din't they already add LAX? Can't the A359 non ULR do it?

It can but clearly it will take a payload hit which SQ probably thinks is restrictive on profitability.

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 7:52 am

ap305 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
Why din't they already add LAX? Can't the A359 non ULR do it?

It can but clearly it will take a payload hit which SQ probably thinks is restrictive on profitability.

Which is ironic, considering that the -ULR is nothing *but* a payload hit.

The higher-J helps though.

ap305 · Wed May 30, 2018 8:01 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
Why din't they already add LAX? Can't the A359 non ULR do it?

It can but clearly it will take a payload hit which SQ probably thinks is restrictive on profitability.

Which is ironic, considering that the -ULR is nothing *but* a payload hit.

The higher-J helps though.

The ulr's better fuel efficiency/capacity and higher mtow permits the payload mix which makes it profitable for SQ. Ironically the new premium heavy ULR config likely results in a OEW almost on par with the standard one.

scbriml · Wed May 30, 2018 8:07 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
One likely needs four A359ULRs to cover the service to Newark (3 in the air and 1 standby).

SQ operated five A345s to support two ULR US destinations. Their seven A359ULRs will allow them to operate three ULR destinations.

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 8:09 am

ap305 wrote:
Ironically the new premium heavy ULR config likely results in a OEW almost on par with the standard one.

Would be interesting to see how the math compares, do you know the weight of the J seats?

Planeyguy · Wed May 30, 2018 8:09 am

Since the A350-900ULR is the replacement for the A340 I think SIA will send it to whichever destination that was served by the A340

tvh · Wed May 30, 2018 8:12 am

I still do not understand why they do LAX not non-stop with one of there new A380's.

ap305 · Wed May 30, 2018 8:19 am

LAX772LR wrote:
ap305 wrote:
Ironically the new premium heavy ULR config likely results in a OEW almost on par with the standard one.

Would be interesting to see how the math compares, do you know the weight of the J seats?

That would be SQ's secret but nothing less than 150kg based on figures floating around for generic new lie flat seats.

infinit · Wed May 30, 2018 8:20 am

Here's a good article with details and the background of the to-be resumed EWR flight:
https://mainlymiles.com/2018/05/30/sing ... m-october/

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 8:21 am

tvh wrote:
I still do not understand why they do LAX not non-stop with one of there new A380's.

Apparently because they still make good money on their LAX-NRT route... especially since so few carriers fly that route nowadays, compared to when they started.

Same reason they keep SFO-HKG, despite the nonstops to SIN there.

tlecam · Wed May 30, 2018 9:55 am

infinit wrote:
Here's a good article with details and the background of the to-be resumed EWR flight:
https://mainlymiles.com/2018/05/30/sing ... m-october/

While I agree that EWR is very doable from NYC, the author offers a very rosy view of getting to and from EWR while offering a much more realistic view of JFK.

jfklganyc · Wed May 30, 2018 10:30 am

Why is it EWR and not JFK? Im curious, because:

1. They have an operation at JFK; not EWR

2. They keep making a point of saying they are going to serve “New York” in their ads, but make no mention of “EWR” in the ad. Im pretty sure they have to do that. “New Service to New York (EWR)” I mean, technically, the ad is a lie.

Even Royal Carribbean, which serves only Bayonne for their NY cruises, sends one cruise a year to Manhattan...specifically so their ads saying “Offering cruises from NY” arent a lie. This year that cruise is on Nov 13

3. What is the draw of this flight to EWR and only EWR?

Im not starting a EWR JFK thing. It is just really bizzare

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 10:43 am

jfklganyc wrote:
Im not starting a EWR JFK thing.

Yes you are, as this has been explained to you before. :roll:

They served EWR nonstop for 9yrs, served it 1stop before that, and have served JFK even longer; they obviously know what works best for them and where.

Lastly, and for the umpteenth-zillionth time, EWR is an NYC co-terminal whether you and those like you choose to be willfully-obtuse about it or not.

Airlines don't give two craps about invisible political lines when they're targeting a particular demographic.
Just like they serve Cincinnati, Ohio via an airport in Kentucky. Just like they serve Bratislava, Slovakia via an airport in Hungary. Just like........

DiscoverCSG · Wed May 30, 2018 10:43 am

The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 10:46 am

DiscoverCSG wrote:
The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

Only in one direction, if at all.

Look at the timing: when the nonstop goes daily, it will arrive at EWR before 6am and be out of there by 10am... so there'll be plenty of USA cnnx for those arriving from Asia, but limited stateside connections for those departing the USA.

tlecam · Wed May 30, 2018 10:51 am

LAX772LR wrote:
DiscoverCSG wrote:
The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

Only in one direction, if at all.

Look at the timing: when the nonstop goes daily, it will arrive at EWR before 6am and be out of there by 10am... so there'll be plenty of USA cnnx for those arriving from Asia, but very few stateside connections for those departing the USA.

I agree. ULH inevitably caters to O&D.

My take on the whole EWR vs. JFK thing is that it’s probably relatively simple - if facing a 19 hour non-stop flight vs. a connection, the commute to EWR isn’t a huge factor, unless you’re coming from Long Island. In that case, why not just co-locate with your *A partner at EWR? Lots of potential intangible benefits - support for passengers, ground services etc...

ltbewr · Wed May 30, 2018 10:51 am

I am really happy that EWR will once again be the end point of the longest regularly scheduled commercial passenger flight in the world. EWR has a long history, since 1928, of historic flights, innovations, and access. As to EWR vs. JFK, I suspect the EWR market area is slightly better than JFK for connecting flights in the eastern USA like from Boston and smaller cities, close to Philadelphia, the offices and back offices for a number of financial services companies in Jersey City, Princeton, central and northern NJ, downstate NYC west of the Hudson and not much in difference from lower Manhattan to EWR vs. JFK.
Can't wait to see these new birds flyover near me on the Northern approach to EWR.

LAX772LR · Wed May 30, 2018 10:58 am

tlecam wrote:
I agree. ULH inevitably caters to O&D.

That, and it geographically makes zilch sense for N.American pax to connect almost anywhere, via SIN.

Just about any given destination is reached by a shorter distance (and with greater stateside frequency) via HKG... or even TPE/NRT/ICN.

That said, I'm sure more than a fair share will use SQ for cnnx for various reasons, but it's still worth noting.

airbazar · Wed May 30, 2018 11:28 am

aemoreira1981 wrote:
United has shown that a standard Dreamliner can make it to Singapore both from LAX and SFO nonstop.

UA has to block seats on both routes in Winter. Plus I suspect that SQ is more interested in the large premium cabin of the LR. Of course they could put the same config on a non-LR plane but who knows. Another factor could be that the shorter LAX route (relative to EWR), complements the aircraft's utilization schedule. For example, they would need a minimum of 3 aircraft for SIN-EWR alone, but only 5 aircraft for both SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX. Adding a 3rd route even if it's not a ULR route would improve the fleet's utilization even better.

MalevTU134 wrote:
Why would they need 3 in the air? It's a daily flight of around 18 hours each way. 2.25-2.5 aircraft (including the spare) is enough.

There's no such thing a .25 or .5 plane

They'll be able to get better utilization when they add a second destination especially since LAX is a shorter route.

Motorhussy · Wed May 30, 2018 11:48 am

Be interesting to see how long UA lasts on LAX-SIN once SQ recommences the route non-stop.

And re the plane being the same empty weight as the non-ULR version, remember that full it’ll be a lot lighter with premium paying pax.

77H · Wed May 30, 2018 11:50 am

FA9295 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:
BWIAirport wrote:
Now the guessing game begins as to what that next city after SFO, LAX, and EWR will be. I'm sure half of a.net thinks BNA deserves it, but realistically I'm thinking IAH or ORD.

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

BNA...?! Pshh... DTW deserves it more than anyone else!

On a serious note though, my bets are all on IAH...

On a more serious note... I have it on good authority from a.net corporate that the 4th market will be either MIA or SAN. By SAN I specifically mean TIJ serving SAN via the CBX. Prove me wrong...

77H

readytotaxi · Wed May 30, 2018 11:59 am

Curious about the J seat plan. Is it 1-2-1 as the current A350 and 67 is an odd number.

airbazar · Wed May 30, 2018 12:21 pm

77H wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

BNA...?! Pshh... DTW deserves it more than anyone else!

On a serious note though, my bets are all on IAH...

On a more serious note... I have it on good authority from a.net corporate that the 4th market will be either MIA or SAN. By SAN I specifically mean TIJ serving SAN via the CBX. Prove me wrong...

That's your serious note? :rotfl:

blueflyer · Wed May 30, 2018 12:22 pm

DiscoverCSG wrote:
The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

UA and Singapore never seemed too keen on collaborating. I flew the non-stops to EWR/LAX several times back then, almost always with a connection, and I often ended up on another carrier for the domestic leg, even when UA was a viable option, timing wise.

a320fan · Wed May 30, 2018 12:32 pm

I had my money on it would be to JFK this time around. Maybe my perception is off, as I've never been anywhere near NYC, but I don't picture EWR as a premium airport, nor an option many people consider when heading to New York.

tphuang · Wed May 30, 2018 12:38 pm

DiscoverCSG wrote:
The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

It really doesn't make a lot of sense to connect at EWR. I think this is mostly an O&D route.

From that sense, it's more about where they think they can get the highest yield. You can make the argument that large *A FF base will commute to JFK from Jersey to fly direct to SIN. Whereas the JFK captive areas have more competition from 1-stop option. For example, someone living in Long Island or Queens will have to deal with a 2 hour commute to go to EWR. In that case, it may save more time to fly JFK-HKG/ICN/NRT-SIN. In my case, I don't think I will pay extra to fly non-stop out of EWR vs CX out of JFK.

bummer, since I had been looking forward to this flight.

aemoreira1981 · Wed May 30, 2018 12:47 pm

tlecam wrote:
infinit wrote:
Here's a good article with details and the background of the to-be resumed EWR flight:
https://mainlymiles.com/2018/05/30/sing ... m-october/

While I agree that EWR is very doable from NYC, the author offers a very rosy view of getting to and from EWR while offering a much more realistic view of JFK.

From the business district of NYC, Newark is closer than JFK (keep in mind that this is a red-eye flight), although one is dealing with inbound rush hour traffic when the flight arrives into New York.

jns13 · Wed May 30, 2018 12:56 pm

a320fan wrote:
I had my money on it would be to JFK this time around. Maybe my perception is off, as I've never been anywhere near NYC, but I don't picture EWR as a premium airport, nor an option many people consider when heading to New York.

it's an option pretty much anyone flying United to New York considers. as several posters have mentioned, EWR is in some cases more convenient to manhattan offices than JFK or, at the very least, a not dissimilar commute/distance.

voxkel · Wed May 30, 2018 12:57 pm

Not sure if this was done intentionally, but the Statue of Liberty, something the general public associates with NYC, is tecnically in NJ. When I saw that ad, I felt that the flight would be going to EWR. Were it to go to JFK, they would have chosen something in Manhattan like Times Square or the Empire State Building.

Many companies use subtle clues like this for future announcements. Would be great subtle marketing of EWR's relationship with NYC if intentional.

FlightLevel360 · Wed May 30, 2018 1:24 pm

Should launch from JFK to be honest. Closer to the city and everything with EWR about twice the distance away and a much more dismal experience. But I guess they chose EWR for the east coast connection opportunities on United. Then again, we do have a one stop flight from JFK to Singapore already. I guess it's better to offer passengers a choice of airport since EWR could be convenient to many people living in New Jersey.

zakuivcustom · Wed May 30, 2018 1:46 pm

77H wrote:
FA9295 wrote:
Slash787 wrote:

Why would people think BNA deserves it? They will go for IAH or DFW any day before thinking about BNA.

BNA...?! Pshh... DTW deserves it more than anyone else!

On a serious note though, my bets are all on IAH...

On a more serious note... I have it on good authority from a.net corporate that the 4th market will be either MIA or SAN. By SAN I specifically mean TIJ serving SAN via the CBX. Prove me wrong...

77H

Come on, we all know it'll be A380 to AUS :stirthepot:

It does mention "Another NORTH AMERICAN (so not just US) destination", though, so my bet is actually on YYZ.

Nice to see SQ back in NYC, though.

BC77008 · Wed May 30, 2018 1:55 pm

a320fan wrote:
I had my money on it would be to JFK this time around. Maybe my perception is off, as I've never been anywhere near NYC, but I don't picture EWR as a premium airport, nor an option many people consider when heading to New York.

I don't think any airport in NYC would qualify as "premium." Sure JFK has a lot of history to it, but so does EWR as being the first commercial airport to serve NYC. And yes, a lot of people do consider and use EWR when headed to or from NYC.

Sightseer · Wed May 30, 2018 2:04 pm

airbazar wrote:
For example, they would need a minimum of 3 aircraft for SIN-EWR alone, but only 5 aircraft for both SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX.

Is this factoring in the need for a spare plane/maintenance? The actual round-trip SIN-EWR-SIN will only take 42-43 hours, so just two planes will need to be airborne at any given time.

CaliguyNYC · Wed May 30, 2018 2:19 pm

DiscoverCSG wrote:
The draw to EWR could be UA's massive hub and *A FF base.

Bingo. As a business traveler working/living in Manhattan, it is very easy to use both airports (so SIN origin pax coming to Manhattan for meetings will not and should not care). But I am a Skyteam/DL guy so would fly them even with this nonstop. EWR draws on UA's massive FF pool of STAR pax. I am surprised that people don't get the value of FF programs. A flight between NYC and SIN in paid J is like a free ticket through a FF program. Plus even if they got 10 connecting pax from UA every day paying $12k tickets. That should tilt the flight to EWR. IF you live in LI and are STAR then just take the JFK flight. No biggie.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net