Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
incitatus
Posts: 3378
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:40 pm

airbazar wrote:
Yes indeed, that proves the flight was never profitable :crazy:
First of all, the flights started in 2004: LAX in February and EWR in June.
The 2009 cuts were not just for these routes but network wide as the result of the global recession. Many airlines cut capacity and entire routes during that time.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... try-losses
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapo ... -11-a.html
That is all those number prove. Nothing more, nothing less.


It is just silly from someone to come to a.net and "demand" financial information related to an airline route. SQ sunk a lot of money into the A340-500s. Then reconfigured them. Then scrapped the route. If SQ was recovering at least the operating cost, it would have kept it going - even if the whole A340-500 nonstop project never made a dime. Recession or not, this was a BIG failure.
I do not consume Murdoch products including the Wall Street Journal
 
ikramerica
Posts: 15100
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:33 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Oct 15, 2018 4:58 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
B747forever wrote:
Dont you think that dropping the route is quite a telling sign of not being able to fly the route profitably?

(see below)


jerseyewr777 wrote:
I thought it was dropped because they had a deal with Airbus taking back the A345 which left them with no aircraft to fly the route nonstop.

:checkmark: :checkmark:

That played a big part in it. They would've been fools to not jump on that when given the opportunity.


B747forever wrote:
Not sure what deal you are talking about

Gee, we can't tell. :razz:


B747forever wrote:
but If the A345 routes which included SIN-EWR were profitable, then SQ would never have made such a deal.

The fallacy there, is the assumption that because SQ's ULH ops were of less comparative benefit than the value of a deal which divested of assets that were essentially worthless on the commercial market-- that the ULH must therefore have been unprofitable in aggregate.


airzona11 wrote:
SQ has the data, they partnered with Airbus on the A350LR

Indeed. And from what we can currently see, they appear to be the only ones materially interested in the A359ULR as it stands.

Should the A35K-ULR materialize, particularly with sufficient range for the likes of SYD-LHR, it'd be interesting to see if SQ does(n't) upgauge.

People who ask why SQ would end a route that turned a profit in order to sell the aircraft need to look at the commercial real estate market. Profitable buildings are sold every day. The seller determines that even though the building is profitable, selling it is a better deal. Often depreciation has something major to do with it. The tax benefit of depreciation might be ending or diminishing so selling and reinvesting in a new property might make sense, where the buyer will come in a start depreciation from day 1 at a higher basis.
Of all the things to worry about... the Wookie has no pants.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:29 pm

incitatus wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Yes indeed, that proves the flight was never profitable :crazy:
First of all, the flights started in 2004: LAX in February and EWR in June.
The 2009 cuts were not just for these routes but network wide as the result of the global recession. Many airlines cut capacity and entire routes during that time.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... try-losses
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapo ... -11-a.html
That is all those number prove. Nothing more, nothing less.


It is just silly from someone to come to a.net and "demand" financial information related to an airline route. SQ sunk a lot of money into the A340-500s. Then reconfigured them. Then scrapped the route. If SQ was recovering at least the operating cost, it would have kept it going - even if the whole A340-500 nonstop project never made a dime. Recession or not, this was a BIG failure.


It's no more sillier to demand financial info on a.net as it is to claim something was a BIG failure without any inside knowledge on the matter.
No one knows exactly what the investment was. Lets not forget the A345 didn't come into SQ's fleet in a vacuum. They were part of a larger A340 fleet which Boeing was happy to take off of SQ's hands in exchange for the 772 order.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-x ... story.html
We don't know the exact value of that deal. And when you factor what with the "special treatment" they received from Airbus I would not be shocked if the aircraft ended up at zero cost to them. All I know is that SQ is not known for running unprofitable routes. They have started and ended many routes. They have also said that the U.S. non-stops were not loss making and went so far as working with Airbus to build a dedicated airplane in order to resume the routes. So I'll take their word over anyone's word here on a.net.
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Oct 15, 2018 6:32 pm

airbazar wrote:
incitatus wrote:
airbazar wrote:
Yes indeed, that proves the flight was never profitable :crazy:
First of all, the flights started in 2004: LAX in February and EWR in June.
The 2009 cuts were not just for these routes but network wide as the result of the global recession. Many airlines cut capacity and entire routes during that time.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... try-losses
https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/singapo ... -11-a.html
That is all those number prove. Nothing more, nothing less.


It is just silly from someone to come to a.net and "demand" financial information related to an airline route. SQ sunk a lot of money into the A340-500s. Then reconfigured them. Then scrapped the route. If SQ was recovering at least the operating cost, it would have kept it going - even if the whole A340-500 nonstop project never made a dime. Recession or not, this was a BIG failure.


It's no more sillier to demand financial info on a.net as it is to claim something was a BIG failure without any inside knowledge on the matter.
No one knows exactly what the investment was. Lets not forget the A345 didn't come into SQ's fleet in a vacuum. They were part of a larger A340 fleet which Boeing was happy to take off of SQ's hands in exchange for the 772 order.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-x ... story.html
We don't know the exact value of that deal. And when you factor what with the "special treatment" they received from Airbus I would not be shocked if the aircraft ended up at zero cost to them. All I know is that SQ is not known for running unprofitable routes. They have started and ended many routes. They have also said that the U.S. non-stops were not loss making and went so far as working with Airbus to build a dedicated airplane in order to resume the routes. So I'll take their word over anyone's word here on a.net.


The talk at the time (I think in some cases coming from SQ) was that the routes were not unprofitable, but with oil trending up, and costs rising, that they are going in that direction and did not meet profitability expectations.

I do think the move towards All-J was in effort to save the profitability of the route, but most reports at the time was that it was working to some degree, which is why SQ was committed even then to re-starting the route when they had the next-gen plane to do so.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Tue Oct 16, 2018 1:30 am

dmstorm22 wrote:
The talk at the time (I think in some cases coming from SQ) was that the routes were not unprofitable, but with oil trending up, and costs rising, that they are going in that direction and did not meet profitability expectations.

I do think the move towards All-J was in effort to save the profitability of the route, but most reports at the time was that it was working to some degree, which is why SQ was committed even then to re-starting the route when they had the next-gen plane to do so.

That's how I remember it too.
However the move towards all J was because the LF was poor for Y+ while J was often oversold.
There are different opinions as to why Y+ wasn't selling. One theory which I happen to subscribe was that Y+ was not a well known and understood class by the flying public so it was difficult for SQ to sell it at premium against regular Y on the multiple 1-stop options by the competition.
 
danj555
Posts: 226
Joined: Tue Jul 23, 2013 7:16 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:34 pm

Has anyone been following up with SQ 22 / 21? Half of the flights have been canceled. Any idea why?
Not enough planes?
Issues with staffing?
Aircraft issues?
Or just bad execution?
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Tue Oct 16, 2018 2:46 pm

danj555 wrote:
Has anyone been following up with SQ 22 / 21? Half of the flights have been canceled. Any idea why?
Not enough planes?
Issues with staffing?
Aircraft issues?
Or just bad execution?


No issues. It was planned at the beginning that it wouldn't be daily, rolling out to daily service in a couple weeks.

For the first couple weeks, the days it is not flying the flight is being considered as 'cancelled' - not really sure why.
 
yankeejuliet
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2008 10:55 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Tue Oct 16, 2018 6:14 pm

Cancelled flights are due to new aircraft delivery times being staggered.
 
User avatar
huaiwei
Posts: 359
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 4:36 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Fri Oct 19, 2018 4:35 pm

airbazar wrote:
dmstorm22 wrote:
The talk at the time (I think in some cases coming from SQ) was that the routes were not unprofitable, but with oil trending up, and costs rising, that they are going in that direction and did not meet profitability expectations.

I do think the move towards All-J was in effort to save the profitability of the route, but most reports at the time was that it was working to some degree, which is why SQ was committed even then to re-starting the route when they had the next-gen plane to do so.

That's how I remember it too.
However the move towards all J was because the LF was poor for Y+ while J was often oversold.
There are different opinions as to why Y+ wasn't selling. One theory which I happen to subscribe was that Y+ was not a well known and understood class by the flying public so it was difficult for SQ to sell it at premium against regular Y on the multiple 1-stop options by the competition.

I remember SQ only had Y+ on this route at that time. It might have therefore led to people thinking these are over-priced Y seats.

Ironically it also means people who cannot afford J are not able to fly the route at all. The feedback SQ received probably influenced them to try Y+ again.
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
 
dmstorm22
Posts: 613
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 1:49 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm

huaiwei wrote:
airbazar wrote:
dmstorm22 wrote:
The talk at the time (I think in some cases coming from SQ) was that the routes were not unprofitable, but with oil trending up, and costs rising, that they are going in that direction and did not meet profitability expectations.

I do think the move towards All-J was in effort to save the profitability of the route, but most reports at the time was that it was working to some degree, which is why SQ was committed even then to re-starting the route when they had the next-gen plane to do so.

That's how I remember it too.
However the move towards all J was because the LF was poor for Y+ while J was often oversold.
There are different opinions as to why Y+ wasn't selling. One theory which I happen to subscribe was that Y+ was not a well known and understood class by the flying public so it was difficult for SQ to sell it at premium against regular Y on the multiple 1-stop options by the competition.

I remember SQ only had Y+ on this route at that time. It might have therefore led to people thinking these are over-priced Y seats.

Ironically it also means people who cannot afford J are not able to fly the route at all. The feedback SQ received probably influenced them to try Y+ again.


I thought it was all-J at the end, no? Could be misremembering.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10176
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:02 pm

huaiwei wrote:
I remember SQ only had Y+ on this route at that time. It might have therefore led to people thinking these are over-priced Y seats.

Ironically it also means people who cannot afford J are not able to fly the route at all. The feedback SQ received probably influenced them to try Y+ again.


Right. Premium economy was not well known yet at that time. And SQ's was an even more comfortable type of premium economy. The flying public wasn't familiar and ready to pay for it. It's different now. Everyone now knows what premium economy is and how it's different from regular economy. It might work.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1824
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:17 am

yankeejuliet wrote:
Cancelled flights are due to new aircraft delivery times being staggered.

When THREE ULRs have been delivered and the route only need TWO. Try to bash SQ/Airbus sin another way. #fail

Michael
 
User avatar
VirginFlyer
Posts: 5571
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2000 12:27 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:05 am

eamondzhang wrote:
yankeejuliet wrote:
Cancelled flights are due to new aircraft delivery times being staggered.

When THREE ULRs have been delivered and the route only need TWO. Try to bash SQ/Airbus sin another way. #fail

Michael

I don’t think he was trying to bash SQ/Airbus - SQ had always said they would initially be less than daily, then go to daily once enough aircraft had been delivered. Why the flights are listed as cancelled off a daily schedule when the schedule was less than daily at the start, who knows. #jumpingtoconclusions

V/F
It is not for him to pride himself who loveth his own country, but rather for him who loveth the whole world. The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens. —Bahá'u'lláh
 
User avatar
gatibosgru
Posts: 1773
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 2:48 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Sun Oct 21, 2018 6:16 am

yankeejuliet wrote:
Cancelled flights are due to new aircraft delivery times being staggered.


Nope, wasn't a planned daily flight to start.
@DadCelo
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:15 pm

SQ22 SIN-EWR has an average flight time of 17h24, with a max flight time of 17h56 on the 23/10/2018

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq22#1e50a34f

SQ21 EWR-SIN has an average flight time of 17h37, with a max flight time of 18h27 on the 16/11/2018 (route over Europe).

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq21#1e9321a2
 
User avatar
AECM
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 2:52 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:38 pm

Anyone has the fuel burn data from SQ21 on the 25/11/2018? According to FR24 it was flying for 18h39

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq21#1eaa95c6
 
Vladex
Posts: 474
Joined: Sat Oct 26, 2013 2:44 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Dec 10, 2018 5:49 pm

So the flight is 17 and half hours and not 19 hours as told and reported?
 
SQ317
Posts: 133
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 2:16 pm

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:00 pm

Vladex wrote:
So the flight is 17 and half hours and not 19 hours as told and reported?


The longest by duration is EWR-SIN which has been generally been clocking in at anywhere between 17.5-18.5 hours. Sometimes as little as 17 hours, on 25/11 it took 18hr50, the highest I've seen.
 
MD80Ttail
Posts: 170
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2016 1:22 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:05 pm

How much radiation exposure for this flight?
 
StTim
Posts: 3730
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2013 7:39 am

Re: Inaugural SQ SIN-EWR A359ULR 11 October 2018

Mon Dec 10, 2018 11:05 pm

Probably near 19 hours block time on a good number of occasions!

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