Currently SQ operate MAN-IAH. As far as I'm aware, UA don't codeshare on this route (what's the reason for this?) but obviously like SQ, UA is part of Star Alliance.

So would UA be able to make this route with say a B767/787, rather than SQ?

What are the loads/yields like on this route? Why did SQ choose to operate this route via MAN rather than any other European airport? They obviously saw that there was demand/gap in the market for such a route?

Thanks

To be honest it seems a bit of a null question.

The very reason the route exists is because of the SIN-IAH traffic, so by taking SQ off the MAN-IAH sectors means the route overall is not serving its purpose.

However, to answer a question as to whether a standalone route from UA could work if SQ did ever leave the route, well, it’s a tough one.

The load factor seems to be there to be able to manage a B76W flight 5 days a week, but, we are not sure about the yield as not only is that data not published, even if it was published we wouldn’t know how the costings are broken down to dissimlate if a stand alone MAN-IAH flight would work.

Also to bear in mind, UA only serve EWR from MAN currently. I’d hazard a guess that if, and only if a second or even 3rd route was to be considered, ORD and IAD would likely take those 2 spots.

User001 wrote:

To be honest it seems a bit of a null question.

The very reason the route exists is because of the SIN-IAH traffic, so by taking SQ off the MAN-IAH sectors means the route overall is not serving its purpose.

However, to answer a question as to whether a standalone route from UA could work if SQ did ever leave the route, well, it’s a tough one.

The load factor seems to be there to be able to manage a B76W flight 5 days a week, but, we are not sure about the yield as not only is that data not published, even if it was published we wouldn’t know how the costings are broken down to dissimlate if a stand alone MAN-IAH flight would work.

Also to bear in mind, UA only serve EWR from MAN currently. I’d hazard a guess that if, and only if a second or even 3rd route was to be considered, ORD and IAD would likely take those 2 spots.

Thank you for the detailed response. All makes sense to me. And I guess my question was really more 'would a standalone route from UA work if SQ didn't operate it?'.

SQ operates IAH via MAN because two reasons:

No competition.
Potential to pick up some oil related traffic out of Scotland.

I used to work at MAN over the summer and got on well with the Lounge Agents at the lounge Singapore used. It seemed SQ50 and SQ51's Business Class was nearly full going both ways practically every day and lots of SQ and LH group frequent fliers. Not sure what economy was like and I've moved on but I can't imagine there's much seasonal demand between IAH-MAN-SIN so I wouldn't be surprised if it's a money maker all year round.

8herveg wrote:

So would UA be able to make this route with say a B767/787, rather than SQ?

PDEW data are your friends. Why do you think there's any meaningful traffic (at good-for-airline fares) between IAH and MAN? 'I flew it once and a bunch of people disembarked at MAN' is a single observation, not data upon which analysis is conducted.

NYC (and EWR specifically) supports a variety international carriers and TATL destinations that IAH couldn't manage in its wildest dreams. https://www.panynj.gov/airports/en/stat ... -info.html

MIflyer12 wrote:

8herveg wrote:

So would UA be able to make this route with say a B767/787, rather than SQ?

PDEW data are your friends. Why do you think there's any meaningful traffic (at good-for-airline fares) between IAH and MAN? 'I flew it once and a bunch of people disembarked at MAN' is a single observation, not data upon which analysis is conducted.

NYC (and EWR specifically) supports a variety international carriers and TATL destinations that IAH couldn't manage in its wildest dreams. https://www.panynj.gov/airports/en/stat ... -info.html

I guess the fact that they chose MAN as the airport to fly the SIN-IAH route via suggests that there must be some decent demand in order to sell tickets (5th freedom rights) on this sector. And if what the other poster said above is true about Business Class often being full on the MAN-IAH leg, then there must be some meaningful traffic.

This is a route that caters to energy sector. IAH being a UA hub also helps as SQ is a *A carrier. A lot of people don't realize how important Singapore is within the energy sector.
Initially the route operate via Moscow, linking 3 major energy business centers but when the oil business in Russia took a tumble for the worse SQ was forced to make other plans. MAN wasn't picked by throwing darts at a map. SQ had served MAN for years has a tag from the SIN-MUC route so obviously MAN-SIN wasn't strong enough to stand on its own. So they moved the stop from DME to MAN and voila'. Also, as someone alluded to, MAN is probably not a bad jumping off point for the North Sea oil fields either.

MAN was decided by throwing darts. Love the complete fallacy of that statement!

If one connects the dots, it makes sense. IAH-SIN is too far to operate nonstop, IAH-MAN on its own does not have enough traffic, and SIN-MAN (which SQ has experience with) may be does not have enough traffic on its own, so SIN-MAN-IAH is the combination to take advantage of the individual segment traffic and lastly, no competition.

hohd wrote:

If one connects the dots, it makes sense. IAH-SIN is too far to operate nonstop, IAH-MAN on its own does not have enough traffic, and SIN-MAN (which SQ has experience with) may be does not have enough traffic on its own, so SIN-MAN-IAH is the combination to take advantage of the individual segment traffic and lastly, no competition.

The flight used to be via DME. Only changed to MAN a couple of years ago.

MAN was just moving the middle dot to a better spot, but the goal is still connecting SIN and IAH

Antarius wrote:

hohd wrote:

If one connects the dots, it makes sense. IAH-SIN is too far to operate nonstop, IAH-MAN on its own does not have enough traffic, and SIN-MAN (which SQ has experience with) may be does not have enough traffic on its own, so SIN-MAN-IAH is the combination to take advantage of the individual segment traffic and lastly, no competition.

The flight used to be via DME. Only changed to MAN a couple of years ago.

MAN was just moving the middle dot to a better spot, but the goal is still connecting SIN and IAH

Not necessarily. MAN has proven extremely popular for Scotland bound traffic.

MAN-IAH per the T-100s is coming in at around 64% load (based on the whole aitcraft). Not knowing the inventory split means that we domt know what percentage of the avaiilabe seats for MAN-IAH alone is being taken up. But rest assured, MAN is not a lightweight on this route MAN-SIN is between 70% to 80% loads but i reckon the aircraft leaves MAN at 90% full in both directions when the SIN-IAH sector is factored in.

MIflyer12 wrote:

8herveg wrote:

So would UA be able to make this route with say a B767/787, rather than SQ?

NYC (and EWR specifically) supports a variety international carriers and TATL destinations that IAH couldn't manage in its wildest dreams. https://www.panynj.gov/airports/en/stat ... -info.html

What does that have to do at all with the question that was asked by the OP?

Purely as an anecdotal aside...we have travelled BNE-SIN-MAN for the last 3 years and you get all sorts travelling on it. My favourite was a German family who were flying Bali-Singapore-Manchester-Houston-Orlando as it saved them a couple of $$ over anything more direct.

anectdotally I have flown it a few times because I love the SQ service. Y has always been light (except when I did it one July), J mostly full. always saw lots of cargo being loaded at IAH.