The following article suggests that Singapore Airlines is looking at another ULR US route starting in NW20/21. Possible routes include ORD, BOS and IAD with ORD to be the most likely.

What is known is

SQ33/34, 3 weekly SIN-SFO switched from A359ULR to normal A359 from 25 Oct 2020
SQ35/36, 3 weekly SIN-LAX finishes 25 Oct 2020, making ULR service to LAX reducing from 10 to 7 weekly

This will free up 2 A359ULR's along with SQ having already having one spare which suggests a new daily A359ULR is due to be announced

https://viewfromthewing.com/is-singapor ... -non-stop/

Thoughts?

MIA?

ORD and IAD would make the most sense. They both offer a lot of connections via UA and they both also have a relatively high amount of business travellers

DTW

BOS? Lolol. That will never, ever happen.

Gotta be DTW !!!

Could they axe the MAN-IAH route and do IAH non-stop?

acavpics wrote:

Could they axe the MAN-IAH route and do IAH non-stop?

Would IAH have the pax to stand on its own? Granted we don't know the yield, but most days the amount of pax making the full journey SIN-IAH barely get past 50?

The majority of pax are either SIN-MAN-SIN and MAN-IAH-MAN.

I would think making JFK nonstop, would be the priority.

acavpics wrote:

Could they axe the MAN-IAH route and do IAH non-stop?

9,930 mi, 20 miles shorter than JFK-SYD

Kikko19 wrote:

MIA?

Why...?

Actually, the great circle distance is 8629 nautical miles, which makes the route 344nm longer than the distance to Newark. Should be doable with the ULR.

ORD makes the most sense, Connections on both Sides and its the only current market between the coats that has the network to support it. IAH is already served via MAN, IAD/BOS is a quick hop to/from EWR, and the west Coast is Already covered. A early Morning Arrival into ORD would not be peak hrs at T-5 so would Allow a turnaround for a 930 or 10am departure for the SIN evening bank.

YYZ?

Probably ORD given the connection with UA

BOS actually have a lot of premium traffic. While NY is where trading and investment banking is located, many asset management firms and insurance companies have heavy presence in Boston. Singapore actually have an extremely heavy presence in the asset management/wealth management space. I can see a lot of O&D business traffic on the route. Not sure if it's enough to support daily non-stop service though. If it's something like 5x weekly, SQ may give it a try.

IAD is tougher since the traffic will need to rely on government traffic, and it's a smaller hub for UA. If the route is launched with UA connectivity in sight, it would be ORD rather than IAD.

x1234 wrote:

Remember the bread and butter of SQ is business/first class passengers which make the flight sustainable. I bet its probably USA instead of Canada as Canada is mostly VFR and not much business travel (same reason they chose SEA over YVR for Microsoft, Amazon, etc.). Chicago has the 2nd highest number of Fortune 500 companies in the USA after NYC plus UA/AA megahub's. BOS/IAD is a quick train/bus/flight ride away from EWR/JFK anyways. This is the same reason EVA from TPE and China Eastern from PVG, HU from PEK and CX from HKG chose ORD after NYC.

BOS sees CX from HKG (90%+ loads), and HU from both PEK and PVG ...and JL from NRT and KE from ICN

EVA is heavily bombarding the adspace these days in the BOS area too ... not sure what their plan is though!

SASViking wrote:

ORD and IAD would make the most sense. They both offer a lot of connections via UA and they both also have a relatively high amount of business travellers

raylee67 wrote:

Probably ORD given the connection with UA

People often forget that SQ and UA aren't really "friends". A booking on SQ from just about any non-direct city will have you traveling on AS or B6 to make the connection, not UA. Similarly, UA will put their TPAC connections on JL, not SQ.

That being said, I still agree that ORD makes the most sense for O&D demand.

bravotango75 wrote:

Kikko19 wrote:

MIA?

Why...?

Kikko19 wrote:

MIA?

SQ themselves said so.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... QwXTugQYXg

Though SIN is a massive hub - the flows are not the greatest from the 3 USA destinations mentioned. Besides the obvious East Asian carriers, The ME3, European Carriers and TK are also competition for IAD/CHI/BOS- SE Asia.

I would bet on ORD. BOS/IAD would be better suited via fifth-freedom. BOS would have to be via Europe since the ship has sailed on going through ICN or NRT.

SIN has feed on all three destinations with either B6 and UA plus they interline with anyone.

Or could just be a second daily NYC.

ASA wrote:

x1234 wrote:

Remember the bread and butter of SQ is business/first class passengers which make the flight sustainable. I bet its probably USA instead of Canada as Canada is mostly VFR and not much business travel (same reason they chose SEA over YVR for Microsoft, Amazon, etc.). Chicago has the 2nd highest number of Fortune 500 companies in the USA after NYC plus UA/AA megahub's. BOS/IAD is a quick train/bus/flight ride away from EWR/JFK anyways. This is the same reason EVA from TPE and China Eastern from PVG, HU from PEK and CX from HKG chose ORD after NYC.

BOS sees CX from HKG (90%+ loads), and HU from both PEK and PVG ...and JL from NRT and KE from ICN

EVA is heavily bombarding the adspace these days in the BOS area too ... not sure what their plan is though!

They are quivering because Starlux is about to go for it. So EVA as we know it and EVA in 10 years are not likely to be the same. Whether smaller or larger, who will say? But clearly Starlux has its eyes firmly on the premium North American market. So they will be doing all they can at the moment to build market share / customer brand identification.

I am expecting SQ into ORD before BOS or IAD. MIA is not in the running IMHO. And IAH is similar - as it is already served one-stop and wouldn't be served it were not one-stop.

ITSTours wrote:

Or could just be a second daily NYC.

I would love that. Threads and threads full of rumors and debates only to be another NYC flight

stl07 wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

Or could just be a second daily NYC.

I would love that. Threads and threads full of rumors and debates only to be another NYC flight

Never knew there was that much demand for NYC-Singapore. Perhaps to JFK this time?

ORD and YVR are the next logical destinations for SQ in North America. SIN-YVR is shorter than SIN-SFO, and can be flown with a standard A350-900.

All signs point to ORD getting SQ in Oct 2020.

chrisp390 wrote:

YYZ?

I would love to see this!
any history here, or what would the distance/flight be?

I agree that ORD makes the most sense. The UA connections would help sustain the flights.

I keep reading a lot of posts suggesting ORD makes the most sense because of UA connections. SQ isn't chasing connections, they're after business demand and strong O&D. While I'm sure connections help, they won't make a route.

Furthermore - we've all read about the issues ORD is experiencing with their flights to Asia. AA has completely abandoned all ORD-Asia flying, OZ recently pulled the plug completely on ORD-ICN. So if a *A carrier like OZ can't make ORD work then how can SQ with an ULH flight like SIN-ORD?

what ties does Chicago have to Singapore? ORD is losing Asia flights already as it is. it's a good connecting hub but a flight like this will rely more on high dollar local demand. hence why SQ fly to the cities they do in the US currently that do have strong demand to Singapore.

Last time this rumour floated before they consolidated them on SFO/LAX/EWR, ORD and YYZ ended up being the two 'favourites' so to speak. I cannot recall if that was based on anything concrete or merely speculation. Keeping that in mind, considering how well ORD has been doing lately internationally, gaining carriers and increasing pre-existing services, and how poorly YYZ has been doing, loosing carriers and reducing pre-existing services, I think it is pretty clear where the service will be added, provided this actually happens of course.

TLDR, if something actually happens, it will be ORD no doubt, dark horse JFK, eliminating the JFK-FRA service. Cannot foresee anything other than that happening. Would love to be wrong.

Pbb152 wrote:

BOS? Lolol. That will never, ever happen.

This was once said by everyone about almost every international flight that’s started at BOS in the last 10 years.

I agree it’s not likely but BOS can’t be ruled out.

FlyHPN wrote:

People often forget that SQ and UA aren't really "friends". A booking on SQ from just about any non-direct city will have you traveling on AS or B6 to make the connection, not UA. Similarly, UA will put their TPAC connections on JL, not SQ.

I wouldn't say they're not friends. People here like to equate lack of codesharing with animosity, which is not right.
Codesharing is a financial business transaction. It has to make sense for both partners. SQ and UA do codeshare, where it makes financial sense to do it. As you pointed out they also code-share with AS and B6, as well as VS and TK on TATL routes.

Iloveboeing wrote:

I agree that ORD makes the most sense. The UA connections would help sustain the flights.

The only way it makes sense is if ORD has strong O&D demand to Southeast Asia because SQ won't be getting much if any feed for this flight out of ORD.
IMO BOS makes more sense than ORD, if it has enough O&D demand. As pointed out, within N.America B6 and AS are SQ's primary partners and SQ will have far more connecting options in BOS then at ORD. Even at SFO, SQ doesn't code-share with UA. Instead they get their feed from AS. At ORD they would need a lot of O&D demand to make up for the lack of connections.

It's ridiculous that they are not considering YVR while Changi Airport told SQ to launch YVR asap...

The most logical option is to get rid of the SIN-FRA-JFK routes and replace with a direct SIN-JFK route. These 5th freedom routes are rarely profitable when there are so many other 1-stop options.

NYC-SIN market dwarfs anything else on the east coast. It's a huge business market. I don't see any other cities getting it ahead of JFK/

YYZORD wrote:

It's ridiculous that they are not considering YVR while Changi Airport told SQ to launch YVR asap...

Why should an airline follow orders from an airport?

Why did they put a ULR on the SFO route only to change to a regular A359 next year, and winter at that also?

tphuang wrote:

The most logical option is to get rid of the SIN-FRA-JFK routes and replace with a direct SIN-JFK route. These 5th freedom routes are rarely profitable when there are so many other 1-stop options.

NYC-SIN market dwarfs anything else on the east coast. It's a huge business market. I don't see any other cities getting it ahead of JFK/

But the A350’s don’t have F and JFK is a premium heavy route for them where they can sell the majority of their F cabin.

I’ve also heard they have demand for just the JFK-FRA-JFK legs as well. I don’t expect to see them replace the A380 to JFK.

flyguy1 wrote:

I would think making JFK nonstop, would be the priority.

I think they'll take the NZ approach in regards to NYC vs ORD. There's just greater connectivity for them at ORD. Plus, EWR has already been their nonstop airport of choice in NYC.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The most logical option is to get rid of the SIN-FRA-JFK routes and replace with a direct SIN-JFK route. These 5th freedom routes are rarely profitable when there are so many other 1-stop options.

NYC-SIN market dwarfs anything else on the east coast. It's a huge business market. I don't see any other cities getting it ahead of JFK/

But the A350’s don’t have F and JFK is a premium heavy route for them where they can sell the majority of their F cabin.

I’ve also heard they have demand for just the JFK-FRA-JFK legs as well. I don’t expect to see them replace the A380 to JFK.

Those F demand are right now flying J out of EWR. This is based on my conversation with quite a few people flying NYC-SIN. Hard to see how JFK-FRA on A380 can compete with airlines with strong POS on both end.

qf789 wrote:

The following article suggests that Singapore Airlines is looking at another ULR US route starting in NW20/21. Possible routes include ORD, BOS and IAD with ORD to be the most likely.

What is known is

SQ33/34, 3 weekly SIN-SFO switched from A359ULR to normal A359 from 25 Oct 2020
SQ35/36, 3 weekly SIN-LAX finishes 25 Oct 2020, making ULR service to LAX reducing from 10 to 7 weekly

This will free up 2 A359ULR's along with SQ having already having one spare which suggests a new daily A359ULR is due to be announced

https://viewfromthewing.com/is-singapor ... -non-stop/

Thoughts?

Good topic! Why do we think this frame is destined for US services? Hypothetically speaking, Chicago is the only option listed that makes sense if you think UA is going to ink some sort of massive co-operation together, which I have my doubts would be approved given UA & SQ are the only carriers with n/s service to the USA. SQ Cargo makes sense for MIA, not just SQ & certainly not non-stop with the lack of Premium demand that would govern the logistics of this flight.

SASViking wrote:

ORD and IAD would make the most sense. They both offer a lot of connections via UA and they both also have a relatively high amount of business travellers

If UA & SQ were partnered up like that, then ORD hands down is the ONLY option for SQ, but it's not like that. I went to the SQ website, UA is listed under "other" code-share partners, this is the entire list currently of the routes where SQ code-shares on UA, cut & paste for your use & information: https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/us/t ... -partners/

Codeshare destinations with United Airlines
Routes

Houston ↔ Atlanta
Houston ↔ Austin
Houston ↔ Dallas
Houston ↔ Fort Lauderdale
Houston ↔ Miami
Houston ↔ New Orleans
Houston ↔ Orlando
Houston ↔ Tampa

SQ & UA have not been close in decades & they are both founding members of Star Alliance. An entirely new contract would need to be proposed by both carriers & it would need to be approived by both the B.O.D. as well as all USA & Singapore governmental regulatory committees for final approval.

x1234 wrote:

Remember the bread and butter of SQ is business/first class passengers which make the flight sustainable. I bet its probably USA instead of Canada as Canada is mostly VFR and not much business travel (same reason they chose SEA over YVR for Microsoft, Amazon, etc.). Chicago has the 2nd highest number of Fortune 500 companies in the USA after NYC plus UA/AA megahub's. BOS/IAD is a quick train/bus/flight ride away from EWR/JFK anyways. This is the same reason EVA from TPE and China Eastern from PVG, HU from PEK and CX from HKG chose ORD after NYC.

This is another great example of why ORD makes the most sense, even without a code-sharing agreement. The business demand IS the reason these ULH flights exist. People willing to pay a premium to shave a couple of hours off their journey time.

FlyHPN wrote:

SASViking wrote:

ORD and IAD would make the most sense. They both offer a lot of connections via UA and they both also have a relatively high amount of business travellers

raylee67 wrote:

Probably ORD given the connection with UA

People often forget that SQ and UA aren't really "friends". A booking on SQ from just about any non-direct city will have you traveling on AS or B6 to make the connection, not UA. Similarly, UA will put their TPAC connections on JL, not SQ.

That being said, I still agree that ORD makes the most sense for O&D demand.

Exactly, in fact they are the only two carriers flying n/s to SIN for the USA. They are the competition. That IAD flyer going to SIN, UA wants to route via SFO & SIN over EWR, SFO, SEA or LAX. I think if SQ-UA filed for some interline agreement or code-sharing services, I think there may be push back, given they would monopolize the small, but lucrative market. IMHO only.

Thenoflyzone wrote:

ORD and YVR are the next logical destinations for SQ in North America. SIN-YVR is shorter than SIN-SFO, and can be flown with a standard A350-900.

All signs point to ORD getting SQ in Oct 2020.

I am surprised they are not at YVR currently, but I agree that YVR is a logical add for the non-ULH model of their A-359. But yes, ORD & then YVR seem like very logical adds & maybe the A-359 is the perfect mix that can help the route become profitable on paper & SQ takes the leap of faith.

airbazar wrote:

FlyHPN wrote:

People often forget that SQ and UA aren't really "friends". A booking on SQ from just about any non-direct city will have you traveling on AS or B6 to make the connection, not UA. Similarly, UA will put their TPAC connections on JL, not SQ.

I wouldn't say they're not friends. People here like to equate lack of codesharing with animosity, which is not right.
Codesharing is a financial business transaction. It has to make sense for both partners. SQ and UA do codeshare, where it makes financial sense to do it. As you pointed out they also code-share with AS and B6, as well as VS and TK on TATL routes.

Iloveboeing wrote:

I agree that ORD makes the most sense. The UA connections would help sustain the flights.

The only way it makes sense is if ORD has strong O&D demand to Southeast Asia because SQ won't be getting much if any feed for this flight out of ORD.
IMO BOS makes more sense than ORD, if it has enough O&D demand. As pointed out, within N.America B6 and AS are SQ's primary partners and SQ will have far more connecting options in BOS then at ORD. Even at SFO, SQ doesn't code-share with UA. Instead they get their feed from AS. At ORD they would need a lot of O&D demand to make up for the lack of connections.

UA & SQ are competitors, they both battle for the Premium dollars for n/s flights to Singapore from the USA.

Cut & Pasted, from the SQ website: https://www.singaporeair.com/en_UK/us/t ... m-the-usa/

Flights to and from the USA
With our codeshare flights on Air Canada, Alaska Airlines, All Nippon Airways, Asiana Airways, EVA Air, JetBlue Airways, Turkish Airlines and Virgin Atlantic to/from various US cities, the flight will have a four-digit flight number starting with ‘SQ’ even though it’s operated by another airline.


When you travel on a codeshare flight, the applicable restrictions and entitlements are subject to the rules of the operating carrier, so it’s important to familiarise yourself with their terms and conditions. For details, visit the respective partner airline website.


Air Canada
Alaska Airlines
All Nippon Airways
Asiana Airlines
EVA Airways
JetBlue Airways
Turkish Airlines
United Airlines
Virgin Atlantic.

I’m gonna put my money on BOS after seeing what’s happened there in the last decade and more importantly WHY it happened: the trifecta of education, money, and tech, the icing being - large O&D Asian population.

FlyHPN wrote:

[People often forget that SQ and UA aren't really "friends". A booking on SQ from just about any non-direct city will have you traveling on AS or B6 to make the connection, not UA. Similarly, UA will put their TPAC connections on JL, not SQ.

That being said, I still agree that ORD makes the most sense for O&D demand.

NH not JL, and that's more because UA and NH has a JV that also covers quite a few SEA routes as well (in addition to TPAC).

trex8 wrote:

Why did they put a ULR on the SFO route only to change to a regular A359 next year, and winter at that also?

SQ already does non-stop SFO on regular A359 year round. It's more they got spare ULR capacity than anything else.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

It's ridiculous that they are not considering YVR while Changi Airport told SQ to launch YVR asap...

Why should an airline follow orders from an airport?

Indeed, and this is getting boring. Literally all airlines should fly to YVR and/or YYZ because they're such a gold mine

Michael

SQ tried ORD for a minute about 15 years ago—withdrew during the 2003 SARS outbreak and never came back—seems like the most likely choice to try now.

kearnet wrote:

I’m gonna put my money on BOS after seeing what’s happened there in the last decade and more importantly WHY it happened: the trifecta of education, money, and tech, the icing being - large O&D Asian population.

THIS +1.

BOS is one the top 10 largest financial centers in the world without SQ service. With all the trouble going on in HKG and the impressive loads CX have had out of BOS, now is the time for SQ to strike!

tphuang wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The most logical option is to get rid of the SIN-FRA-JFK routes and replace with a direct SIN-JFK route. These 5th freedom routes are rarely profitable when there are so many other 1-stop options.

NYC-SIN market dwarfs anything else on the east coast. It's a huge business market. I don't see any other cities getting it ahead of JFK/

But the A350’s don’t have F and JFK is a premium heavy route for them where they can sell the majority of their F cabin.

I’ve also heard they have demand for just the JFK-FRA-JFK legs as well. I don’t expect to see them replace the A380 to JFK.

Those F demand are right now flying J out of EWR. This is based on my conversation with quite a few people flying NYC-SIN. Hard to see how JFK-FRA on A380 can compete with airlines with strong POS on both end.

But if that’s true and those who were flying F out of JFK and are now jumping over to J on the non-stop EWR-SIN then why is SQ keeping the A380 on JFK-FRA-SIN? SQ has their new 77w’s with the smaller 4 seat F cabin they could easily switch to.

Miami for Singapore Air is for a later time, Singapore will eventually fly to Miami when they have filled in other US cities more important to them. Other Asian airlines are waiting to fly to MIA too, when the first one does arrive the second and third will come quickly. Korean, JAL, China Eastern, EVA and China Air are among those which could fly to Miami. Cathay could make it work but its got to be 18 hours from MIA to HKG. IT needs to be an airline from the eastern part of Asia at the western edge of the Pacific Ocean.

jfk777 wrote:

Miami for Singapore Air is for a later time, Singapore will eventually fly to Miami when they have filled in other US cities more important to them. Other Asian airlines are waiting to fly to MIA too, when the first one does arrive the second and third will come quickly. Korean, JAL, China Eastern, EVA and China Air are among those which could fly to Miami. Cathay could make it work but its got to be 18 hours from MIA to HKG. IT needs to be an airline from the eastern part of Asia at the western edge of the Pacific Ocean.

This has to stop. If a Far East Asian airline (JL, KE, MU, etc) wanted to fly to MIA they all have the planes to do it profitably. They all have either 789’s or A359’s and even hometown airline AA has both 788’s and 789’s and even they aren’t dumb enough to waste such a resource. MIA - Far East Asia is a long ways off. MIA doesn’t have the economy to profitably support it.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

jfk777 wrote:

Miami for Singapore Air is for a later time, Singapore will eventually fly to Miami when they have filled in other US cities more important to them. Other Asian airlines are waiting to fly to MIA too, when the first one does arrive the second and third will come quickly. Korean, JAL, China Eastern, EVA and China Air are among those which could fly to Miami. Cathay could make it work but its got to be 18 hours from MIA to HKG. IT needs to be an airline from the eastern part of Asia at the western edge of the Pacific Ocean.

This has to stop. If a Far East Asian airline (JL, KE, MU, etc) wanted to fly to MIA they all have the planes to do it profitably. They all have either 789’s or A359’s and even hometown airline AA has both 788’s and 789’s and even they aren’t dumb enough to waste such a resource. MIA - Far East Asia is a long ways off. MIA doesn’t have the economy to profitably support it.

You say all these airlines " have planes that can do it profitably..." Then you say MiA " doesn't have the economy to profitably support it". SO which is it ?