Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
x1234
Topic Author
Posts: 917
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2016 3:50 pm

SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:50 am

I heard from a friend SQ used to fly to LAS, YYZ, ORD and JFK via BRU. When did these start? I can't find a old SQ timetable online. How were they routed? I read somewhere the YYZ flight was routed SIN-VIE-AMS-YYZ and they left Toronto when AC complained.
 
B-HOP
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:09 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:56 am

I don't know about cargo flights, but LAS passenger flights routed via HK 3 times a week Winter 2002, the route was chopped in SARS, flown by 772ER with Spacebed. ORD was routed via AMS, alternate on days they don't operate to EWR, that was before A345 non-stop, subsequently, the flight was focused on SIN-FRA-JFK and SIN-EWR, JFK may route through somewhere else before FRA in early 90's, BRU was routed through ZRH or CDG several days a week, the shuttle flights also operates on MAN, MAD
Live life to max!!!
 
MAH4546
Posts: 26254
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 3:58 am

LAS was via HKG, JFK was and still is FRA, ORD via AMS and YYZ was VIE and AMS as you mentioned.
a.
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:18 am

Old North American routes:

HKG-LAS-SIN
JFK-BRU-SIN
ORD-AMS-SIN
EWR-AMS-SIN
YVR-ICN-SIN
LAX-ICN-SIN
LAX-TPE-SIN
SFO-ICN-SIN
IAH-DME-SIN
YYZ-AMS-VIE-SIN

Both Canadian routes I think were ultimately discontinued due to protectionist concerns regarding AC IIRC.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
User avatar
ojjunior
Posts: 973
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 12:31 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:21 am

USAirALB wrote:
Old North American routes:

HKG-LAS-SIN
JFK-BRU-SIN
ORD-AMS-SIN
EWR-AMS-SIN
YVR-ICN-SIN
LAX-ICN-SIN
LAX-TPE-SIN
SFO-ICN-SIN
IAH-DME-SIN
YYZ-AMS-VIE-SIN

Both Canadian routes I think were ultimately discontinued due to protectionist concerns regarding AC IIRC.


You meant SIN-HKG-LAS in the first one, right?
 
polaris
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:03 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 4:38 am

USAirALB wrote:
Old North American routes:

YVR-ICN-SIN
YYZ-AMS-VIE-SIN

Both Canadian routes I think were ultimately discontinued due to protectionist concerns regarding AC IIRC.


These routes were not profitable at the time. Plus, SQ did not have suitable aircraft for the routes. That's why they were discontinued. In addition, their internal planning changed so they dropped a number of routes and started others instead. These decisions had nothing to do with protectionist policies or AC complaints - as people have often repeated on this site. It was the same reason that AC discontinued their flights to Singapore. The flights were not profitable nor did they have the right aircraft for the route, at the time.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 6:45 am

ojjunior wrote:
You meant SIN-HKG-LAS in the first one, right?

:checkmark: :checkmark:

SQ008/009, very short-lived op (August 2002 - May 2003) on a 772ER.

One of the first all-new ULH-ish flights launched in the post-9/11 era.

Coincidentally enough, that flight was ended the last time a major Coronavirus outbreak disrupted the aviation industry (SARS 2003). :(
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
trent768
Posts: 155
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:32 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:11 am

Although I was just a 5th grader at the time, I still remember the time when SQ launched the LAS route. They promoted it heavily on the Discovery Channel (at least here in Asia, not sure if it was the same program elsewhere) with a week of special program about Vegas and SQ's ads in between. From my recollection based on the ads, the flight number was SQ6 and it was via TPE.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8271
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:15 am

polaris wrote:
These decisions had nothing to do with protectionist policies or AC complaints - as people have often repeated on this site.


Canada terminated the Bilateral Air Pact between the two countries in 1992, because it said SIA's service to Toronto was depriving Canada's national carriers, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International Ltd., of lucrative trans-Atlantic revenue.

When Canada gave the required 12 months' notice of its plan to suspend the Air Pact in 1991, the Canadian carriers estimated their losses on the trans-Atlantic route were running at C$175 million (US$127 million) a quarter.


https://www.joc.com/canada-singapore-di ... 40814.html

It seems that this publication, an arm of a multi $ Billion business consulting company based in London, disagrees with you.
 
cedarjet
Posts: 8826
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 1:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 11:36 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
polaris wrote:
These decisions had nothing to do with protectionist policies or AC complaints - as people have often repeated on this site.


Canada terminated the Bilateral Air Pact between the two countries in 1992, because it said SIA's service to Toronto was depriving Canada's national carriers, Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International Ltd., of lucrative trans-Atlantic revenue.

When Canada gave the required 12 months' notice of its plan to suspend the Air Pact in 1991, the Canadian carriers estimated their losses on the trans-Atlantic route were running at C$175 million (US$127 million) a quarter.


https://www.joc.com/canada-singapore-di ... 40814.html

It seems that this publication, an arm of a multi $ Billion business consulting company based in London, disagrees with you.

SQ depriving AC of transatlantic traffic is why the Canadian government exited Singapore Airlines from Canada. The article is right. And Canada has a very protective aviation policy.
fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
 
raylee67
Posts: 918
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2011 11:06 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:00 pm

USAirALB wrote:
Old North American routes:
LAX-ICN-SIN
.

I think it was LAX-NRT-SIN?
319/20/21 332/33 342/43/45 359/51 388 707 717 732/36/3G/38/39 74R/42/43/44/4E/48 757 762/63 772/7L/73/7W 788/89 D10 M80 135/40/45 175/90 DH1/4 CRJ/R7 L10
AY LH OU SR BA FI LX
AA DL UA NW AC CP WS FL NK PD
CI NH SQ KA CX JL BR OZ TG KE CA CZ NZ JQ RS
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:29 pm

raylee67 wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
Old North American routes:
LAX-ICN-SIN
.

I think it was LAX-NRT-SIN?

They did at one time run both LAX-NRT-SIN and LAX-ICN-SIN after they exited SFO-ICN-SIN (as SFO gained non-stop to SIN).

The plane that came from ICN went back to NRT and vice versa.

Michael
 
brilondon
Posts: 3163
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 12:57 pm

x1234 wrote:
I heard from a friend SQ used to fly to LAS, YYZ, ORD and JFK via BRU. When did these start? I can't find a old SQ timetable online. How were they routed? I read somewhere the YYZ flight was routed SIN-VIE-AMS-YYZ and they left Toronto when AC complained.


AC didn't complain. They are part of the same alliance so they share traffic on that route.
Rush forever Closer To My Heart
 
jasoncrh
Posts: 780
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 10:29 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:29 pm

That is absolutely not true. Just because they are part of a same alliance does not mean that they share traffic or have any interest in sharing traffic. United and Singapore are in the same alliance, but they hate each other, and have no code shares or anything to "share traffic".

brilondon wrote:
x1234 wrote:
I heard from a friend SQ used to fly to LAS, YYZ, ORD and JFK via BRU. When did these start? I can't find a old SQ timetable online. How were they routed? I read somewhere the YYZ flight was routed SIN-VIE-AMS-YYZ and they left Toronto when AC complained.


AC didn't complain. They are part of the same alliance so they share traffic on that route.
 
codc10
Posts: 2897
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:33 pm

brilondon wrote:
x1234 wrote:
I heard from a friend SQ used to fly to LAS, YYZ, ORD and JFK via BRU. When did these start? I can't find a old SQ timetable online. How were they routed? I read somewhere the YYZ flight was routed SIN-VIE-AMS-YYZ and they left Toronto when AC complained.


AC didn't complain. They are part of the same alliance so they share traffic on that route.


Purely a marketing arrangement. Outside of immunized joint ventures, alliance "partners" are generally competitors.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 1:47 pm

brilondon wrote:
x1234 wrote:
I heard from a friend SQ used to fly to LAS, YYZ, ORD and JFK via BRU. When did these start? I can't find a old SQ timetable online. How were they routed? I read somewhere the YYZ flight was routed SIN-VIE-AMS-YYZ and they left Toronto when AC complained.


AC didn't complain. They are part of the same alliance so they share traffic on that route.


They were not in the same alliance. *A didn't even exist in 1992 when Canada canceled the bilateral. *A was formed in 1997 and SQ only joined in 2000.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3666
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 2:42 pm

airbazar wrote:
brilondon wrote:
x1234 wrote:
I heard from a friend SQ used to fly to LAS, YYZ, ORD and JFK via BRU. When did these start? I can't find a old SQ timetable online. How were they routed? I read somewhere the YYZ flight was routed SIN-VIE-AMS-YYZ and they left Toronto when AC complained.

AC didn't complain. They are part of the same alliance so they share traffic on that route.

They were not in the same alliance. *A didn't even exist in 1992 when Canada canceled the bilateral. *A was formed in 1997 and SQ only joined in 2000.


:checkmark: . Not only that; Singapore was actually partnered with Swissair and Delta between 1989 and 1997, in the "Global Excellence Alliance". The three airlines even took equity stakes in each other, which were sold in 1999 after the alliance had been dismantled in preparation for SG's move to Star Alliance.


https://www.flightglobal.com/delta-sia- ... 84.article
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
polaris
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:03 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:22 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
polaris wrote:
These decisions had nothing to do with protectionist policies or AC complaints - as people have often repeated on this site.


It seems that this publication, an arm of a multi $ Billion business consulting company based in London, disagrees with you.


Interesting and amusing but not entirely correct. Even multi-billion $ consulting companies can provide info and reports that might be not completely correct.
 
User avatar
eta unknown
Posts: 2859
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 5:03 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:53 pm

Sorry Polaris, but I remember the situation being played out in the press. AC most certainly complained about SQ's trans-atlantic pricing and SQ was indeed kicked out of YYZ- it's actually the reason SQ's JFK inaugural was brought forward. However SQ's YVR services were not affected.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Wed Jul 29, 2020 8:58 pm

eta unknown wrote:
Sorry Polaris, but I remember the situation being played out in the press. AC most certainly complained about SQ's trans-atlantic pricing and SQ was indeed kicked out of YYZ- it's actually the reason SQ's JFK inaugural was brought forward. However SQ's YVR services were not affected.

It wasn't affected at that time but the story repeated itself. 3x weekly wasn't attractive enough to premium, business fliers and for that reason SQ wanted daily service. When Canada wouldn't give them daily service, they withdrew.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:10 am

airbazar wrote:
It wasn't affected at that time but the story repeated itself. 3x weekly wasn't attractive enough to premium, business fliers and for that reason SQ wanted daily service. When Canada wouldn't give them daily service, they withdrew.


You have to go a bit further than that to see history repeating itself.

In 1985, with a newly amended air service agreement, two new routes emerged. AC started YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN. At the same time SQ started SIN-ICN-YVR.

AC’s new route was a success, SQ’s was not.

When AC requested expanded capacity, Singapore refused. The L-1011-500 became a 747-200 Combi, but passenger capacity was capped at L-1011 loads. Then cargo came under scrutiny and Singapore would not allow both the 747 Combi from the west and the DC-8F from the east, even though not disallowed in the agreement.

AC had fifth freedom rights on all sectors between all cities. They accurately realized that a daily frequency would be successful. It was allowed by both the UK and Indian Governments ..... but Singapore still refused as their SIN-ICN-YVR was not doing well. AC then stopped the BOM-SIN sector and increased capacity as far as BOM. Reading an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail, it was suggested that pricing by SQ made the route less viable than just stopping in BOM and returning to Canada.

So ..... move ahead a few years. SQ now wants increased service as well as access to Canada from both the east and the west. Is Canada’s and AC’s response any surprise?

The air service agreement between Canada and Singapore still exists, unchanged. It allows full open skies between the two countries. If wanted, SQ could fly daily from Singapore to Canada. But ..... they don’t. And why? Because the business is simply not there.

If their business model requires fifth freedom rights to “poach” other country’s traffic to ensure a success, then maybe there is a flaw somewhere.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:13 am

polaris wrote:

Interesting and amusing but not entirely correct. Even multi-billion $ consulting companies can provide info and reports that might be not completely correct.


This issue has been discussed several times.

From 1991:

“ In August, Singapore Airlines was notified by the Canadian government that its thrice-weekly service to Toronto via Amsterdam and Vienna would be canceled effective in mid-August of 1992.

Air Canada had petitioned the Canadian government to halt Singapore Airlines' transatlantic service on the grounds that the Singapore carrier was siphoning off potential Air Canada passengers, something SIA disputes.”

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/11/23/busi ... riers.html

Not really sure why we’re trying to rewrite history here.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13278
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:30 am

trent768 wrote:
From my recollection based on the ads, the flight number was SQ6 and it was via TPE.

SQ008/009 were the LAS flights, and they were via HKG.

But SQ006 is rather famous, because it's the SIN-TPE-LAX route where "Tropical MegaTop" had the unfortunate runway incident and loss of life.



raylee67 wrote:
USAirALB wrote:
Old North American routes:
LAX-ICN-SIN

I think it was LAX-NRT-SIN?

Both have been recently operated.

SIN-ICN-LAX was discontinued prior to the second daily SIN-LAX nonstop on the A359ULRs launching.
SIN-NRT-LAX operated until the current Covid crisis sent the industry into a tailspin.

The current only Singapore flight to N.America, is now the lone daily SQ037/038 SIN-LAX nonstop, operated by standard (non-ULR) A359s.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
USAirALB
Posts: 2330
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2007 4:46 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:56 am

I somewhat seem to remember that YVR wasn't necessarily a strong performer, though that maybe had to do with its extremely low-frequency. It had long operated with SQ's smallest TPAC-enabled fleet from the A343s to the 772s, and I don't think it supported a First class cabin.
RJ85, F70, E135, E140, E145, E70, E75, E90, CR2, CR7, CR9, 717, 732, 733, 734, 735, 73G, 738, 739, 744ER, 752, 753, 762, 772, 77E, 77W, 789, 319, 320, 321, 332, 333, 343, 359, 388
 
DTWLAX
Posts: 1119
Joined: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:19 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:01 am

eamondzhang wrote:
They did at one time run both LAX-NRT-SIN and LAX-ICN-SIN after they exited SFO-ICN-SIN (as SFO gained non-stop to SIN).

The plane that came from ICN went back to NRT and vice versa.

Michael

I agree SQ operated both SIN-NRT-LAX and SIN-ICN-LAX. However, I do not think the plane coming from ICN went to NRT and vice-versa. SIN-NRT-LAX was usually operated by the A380 and that did not go through ICN. Not sure what happened after SQ stopped using the A380 to LAX.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:16 am

CrewBunk wrote:
airbazar wrote:
It wasn't affected at that time but the story repeated itself. 3x weekly wasn't attractive enough to premium, business fliers and for that reason SQ wanted daily service. When Canada wouldn't give them daily service, they withdrew.


You have to go a bit further than that to see history repeating itself.

In 1985, with a newly amended air service agreement, two new routes emerged. AC started YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN. At the same time SQ started SIN-ICN-YVR.

AC’s new route was a success, SQ’s was not.

When AC requested expanded capacity, Singapore refused. The L-1011-500 became a 747-200 Combi, but passenger capacity was capped at L-1011 loads. Then cargo came under scrutiny and Singapore would not allow both the 747 Combi from the west and the DC-8F from the east, even though not disallowed in the agreement.

AC had fifth freedom rights on all sectors between all cities. They accurately realized that a daily frequency would be successful. It was allowed by both the UK and Indian Governments ..... but Singapore still refused as their SIN-ICN-YVR was not doing well. AC then stopped the BOM-SIN sector and increased capacity as far as BOM. Reading an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail, it was suggested that pricing by SQ made the route less viable than just stopping in BOM and returning to Canada.

So ..... move ahead a few years. SQ now wants increased service as well as access to Canada from both the east and the west. Is Canada’s and AC’s response any surprise?

The air service agreement between Canada and Singapore still exists, unchanged. It allows full open skies between the two countries. If wanted, SQ could fly daily from Singapore to Canada. But ..... they don’t. And why? Because the business is simply not there.

If their business model requires fifth freedom rights to “poach” other country’s traffic to ensure a success, then maybe there is a flaw somewhere.


Cool story.

Heard a few versions of it around here - some of which blame BA For targeting LHR-BOM rather than SQ. Either way, it doesn’t really explain why Canada cancelled a bilateral agreement outright, and then sought talks to fix it. Haven’t seen anything about sorting out BOM-SIN or whatever in the reporting surrounding this:

“Canada, facing possible retaliation from Singapore over cancellation of a bilateral air pact, has invited Singapore to discuss the dispute next month, aviation and trade officials said today.

Canadian and Singapore aviation officials would meet in Canada by mid-September and Singapore Airlines was expected to offer joint Singapore Airlines-Air Canada services on Atlantic and Pacific routes as a compromise to resolve the conflict, they said.

Officials said Air Canada, which voluntarily ended its service to Singapore in January, might take up Singapore's offer to pare big losses on the trans-Atlantic route by Air Canada and Canadian Airlines International Ltd.“

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/08/21/busi ... apore.html

As an aside, I’m pretty sure theres a new bilateral agreement in effect that allows more (unlimited?) non stop frequencies between SIN and CA.

As for “business models”, I’m not sure that any “business model” that requires the government to actively intervene and reduce foreign supply to ensure that some pax are denied choice and therefore become a captive market, really has a leg to stand on, or look down on, airlines trying to serve other markets. Consumers stand to benefit from the competition after all. Assuming consumers actually matter.

But then again, I’m no fan of similar Canadian protectionist measures, like dairy supply management. As you succinctly put it, if an airline has to go running to the government to protect it from foreign competitors in its own home market, “then maybe there is a flaw somewhere”.
Last edited by ElPistolero on Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 7516
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:19 am

DTWLAX wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
They did at one time run both LAX-NRT-SIN and LAX-ICN-SIN after they exited SFO-ICN-SIN (as SFO gained non-stop to SIN).

The plane that came from ICN went back to NRT and vice versa.

Michael

I agree SQ operated both SIN-NRT-LAX and SIN-ICN-LAX. However, I do not think the plane coming from ICN went to NRT and vice-versa. SIN-NRT-LAX was usually operated by the A380 and that did not go through ICN. Not sure what happened after SQ stopped using the A380 to LAX.


What happened after The A380 stopped the NRT-LAX route was that during the time they ran ICN-LAX, the aircraft went SIN-ICN-LAX-NRT-SIN vv. The A380 ran NRT-LAX between 2011-2016 iirc.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:26 am

USAirALB wrote:
I somewhat seem to remember that YVR wasn't necessarily a strong performer, though that maybe had to do with its extremely low-frequency. It had long operated with SQ's smallest TPAC-enabled fleet from the A343s to the 772s, and I don't think it supported a First class cabin.


Evidently flew for 30 odd years before calling it quits during the 2009 financial crisis.

Here’s Intervistas’ testimony to the Canadian Senate on this issue in 2011:

“They were only allowed to fly three times a week to Vancouver.

That does not work. Today airlines need to have daily service. You cannot attract the business travellers if you do not have a daily service. The meeting got done on Tuesday, a couple of days early, but I have to hang around until Thursday until the next flight. If it is only three times a week, you have to wait one or two days or maybe you will be lucky on the day you want to go. You cannot sell business tickets that way. It has to be daily service. Singapore Airlines cancelled that service.

They tried to keep it in place. Here is the interesting thing. They were operating with 90 per cent load factors. Ninety per cent of the seats on average were full, which means most of the flights were going out completely full. For some flights, like December 25, you cannot get people into those seats except airline employees flying on passes.”

https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/com ... an/09evd-e
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1833
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 1:37 am

DTWLAX wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
They did at one time run both LAX-NRT-SIN and LAX-ICN-SIN after they exited SFO-ICN-SIN (as SFO gained non-stop to SIN).

The plane that came from ICN went back to NRT and vice versa.

Michael

I agree SQ operated both SIN-NRT-LAX and SIN-ICN-LAX. However, I do not think the plane coming from ICN went to NRT and vice-versa. SIN-NRT-LAX was usually operated by the A380 and that did not go through ICN. Not sure what happened after SQ stopped using the A380 to LAX.

SQ went 77W on both routes when ICN-LAX was initiated and the routew were one of the first batch that went with the new F4 config

Michael
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:36 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Here’s Intervistas’ testimony to the Canadian Senate on this issue in 2011:

“They were only allowed to fly three times a week to Vancouver.

That does not work. Today airlines need to have daily service. You cannot attract the business travellers if you do not have a daily service. The meeting got done on Tuesday, a couple of days early, but I have to hang around until Thursday until the next flight. If it is only three times a week, you have to wait one or two days or maybe you will be lucky on the day you want to go. You cannot sell business tickets that way. It has to be daily service. Singapore Airlines cancelled that service.

They tried to keep it in place. Here is the interesting thing. They were operating with 90 per cent load factors. Ninety per cent of the seats on average were full, which means most of the flights were going out completely full. For some flights, like December 25, you cannot get people into those seats except airline employees flying on passes.”


Actually, SQ could have flown daily to Vancouver ..... it was just the ICN-YVR leg that was restricted to three times a week. And the restriction was the number of seats, not flights. That’s how AC was able to fly four times a week to SIN from BOM and LHR, they used a 747-200 Combi with reduced passenger capacity.

They claimed the route didn’t work because it wasn’t daily, yet then claimed 90% load factors. Can’t have it both ways gentlemen!

You are right a few notes above in that BA was very vocal about AC’s success flying LHR-BOM, even more so when the BOM-SIN leg was cancelled. I’m guessing the yield on LHR-BOM was greater than YYZ-LHR-BOM.

I always found it very ironic when for years, BA enjoyed a daily YUL-ORD and YYZ-DTW using their fifth freedom rights. (My first flight on a VC-10 was YUL-ORD). It seems like BA felt the same way as SQ, in that fifth freedom rights are only advantageous when it works for them.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 2:54 am

CrewBunk wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
Here’s Intervistas’ testimony to the Canadian Senate on this issue in 2011:

“They were only allowed to fly three times a week to Vancouver.

That does not work. Today airlines need to have daily service. You cannot attract the business travellers if you do not have a daily service. The meeting got done on Tuesday, a couple of days early, but I have to hang around until Thursday until the next flight. If it is only three times a week, you have to wait one or two days or maybe you will be lucky on the day you want to go. You cannot sell business tickets that way. It has to be daily service. Singapore Airlines cancelled that service.

They tried to keep it in place. Here is the interesting thing. They were operating with 90 per cent load factors. Ninety per cent of the seats on average were full, which means most of the flights were going out completely full. For some flights, like December 25, you cannot get people into those seats except airline employees flying on passes.”


Actually, SQ could have flown daily to Vancouver ..... it was just the ICN-YVR leg that was restricted to three times a week. And the restriction was the number of seats, not flights. That’s how AC was able to fly four times a week to SIN from BOM and LHR, they used a 747-200 Combi with reduced passenger capacity.

They claimed the route didn’t work because it wasn’t daily, yet then claimed 90% load factors. Can’t have it both ways gentlemen!

You are right a few notes above in that BA was very vocal about AC’s success flying LHR-BOM, even more so when the BOM-SIN leg was cancelled. I’m guessing the yield on LHR-BOM was greater than YYZ-LHR-BOM.

I always found it very ironic when for years, BA enjoyed a daily YUL-ORD and YYZ-DTW using their fifth freedom rights. (My first flight on a VC-10 was YUL-ORD). It seems like BA felt the same way as SQ, in that fifth freedom rights are only advantageous when it works for them.


Can’t have it both ways? Odd statement to make on an airline forum. The “gentleman” points out - quite clearly - that the 3 weekly frequencies was affecting the high yield premium cabins. Filling the economy cabin wasn’t enough to compensate for that during the financial crisis. Isn’t that why AC created Rouge - for routes with high volume but not enough premium traffic? In this case premium demand was artificially suppressed by the Canadian Government restricting supply, rather than actual demand.

It’s kind of like 6th freedom traffic - AC and it’s cheerleaders complain when other airlines carry sixth freedom to/from Canada, but congratulate themselves for dumping absurd (sub-USD 400) TPAC fares in the US over the last 2-3 years. Americans emerge as winners. Canadians as losers.

Anyway, can’t really disagree that BA and SQ probably behaved in a protectionist manner back then. Singapore and the UK have long given up on that type of “national champion” silliness. Meanwhile Canada is still handing out 3 - 4 weekly frequencies. And AC is still stuck in a “national champion” mindset to this day.

Flown SQ a couple of times in ULH PY in the last few years. The difference between AC and SQ PY is night and day (cabin upkeep, book the cook, no Y banana bread masquerading as PY “continental breakfast” etc). Hope to see them come back to Canada.
 
polaris
Posts: 1154
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 7:03 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:04 am

CrewBunk wrote:
airbazar wrote:
It wasn't affected at that time but the story repeated itself. 3x weekly wasn't attractive enough to premium, business fliers and for that reason SQ wanted daily service. When Canada wouldn't give them daily service, they withdrew.


You have to go a bit further than that to see history repeating itself.

In 1985, with a newly amended air service agreement, two new routes emerged. AC started YYZ-LHR-BOM-SIN. At the same time SQ started SIN-ICN-YVR.

AC’s new route was a success, SQ’s was not.

When AC requested expanded capacity, Singapore refused. The L-1011-500 became a 747-200 Combi, but passenger capacity was capped at L-1011 loads. Then cargo came under scrutiny and Singapore would not allow both the 747 Combi from the west and the DC-8F from the east, even though not disallowed in the agreement.

AC had fifth freedom rights on all sectors between all cities. They accurately realized that a daily frequency would be successful. It was allowed by both the UK and Indian Governments ..... but Singapore still refused as their SIN-ICN-YVR was not doing well. AC then stopped the BOM-SIN sector and increased capacity as far as BOM. Reading an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail, it was suggested that pricing by SQ made the route less viable than just stopping in BOM and returning to Canada.

So ..... move ahead a few years. SQ now wants increased service as well as access to Canada from both the east and the west. Is Canada’s and AC’s response any surprise?

The air service agreement between Canada and Singapore still exists, unchanged. It allows full open skies between the two countries. If wanted, SQ could fly daily from Singapore to Canada. But ..... they don’t. And why? Because the business is simply not there.

If their business model requires fifth freedom rights to “poach” other country’s traffic to ensure a success, then maybe there is a flaw somewhere.


Both this, and your follow-up post, are more accurate and detailed than reports provided in various media and by some consultants. Inaccurate and incomplete info often enters into mythology and continues to be repeated. There is always more to any story. Both your posts capture the reality of the concerns at the time. Congratulations on two excellent posts!
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:43 am

ElPistolero wrote:
Can’t have it both ways? Odd statement to make on an airline forum. The “gentleman” points out - quite clearly - that the 3 weekly frequencies was affecting the high yield premium cabins. Filling the economy cabin wasn’t enough to compensate for that during the financial crisis. Isn’t that why AC created Rouge - for routes with high volume but not enough premium traffic? In this case premium demand was artificially suppressed by the Canadian Government restricting supply, rather than actual demand.

It’s kind of like 6th freedom traffic - AC and it’s cheerleaders complain when other airlines carry sixth freedom to/from Canada, but congratulate themselves for dumping absurd (sub-USD 400) TPAC fares in the US over the last 2-3 years. Americans emerge as winners. Canadians as losers.

Anyway, can’t really disagree that BA and SQ probably behaved in a protectionist manner back then. Singapore and the UK have long given up on that type of “national champion” silliness. Meanwhile Canada is still handing out 3 - 4 weekly frequencies. And AC is still stuck in a “national champion” mindset to this day.

Flown SQ a couple of times in ULH PY in the last few years. The difference between AC and SQ PY is night and day (cabin upkeep, book the cook, no Y banana bread masquerading as PY “continental breakfast” etc). Hope to see them come back to Canada.


I was only going on the quote above, as I would have no idea the load factors SQ was able to achieve. If most of the flights were 100% full as stated, then that would include premium cabins.

One of the complaints noted above was SQ’s pricing policy on these fifth freedom flights. It would seem that was the only way to achieve full flights. Yield management would dictate raising fares to lower load factors but still raise yield, but I’m sure SQ knew what they were doing.

Much like AC’s pricing policy on the Pacific. Yes, some deals were certainly available, but as AC’s yields were no different from other airlines, it would appear only a few of those cheap seats were allocated.

Btw, if you think Rouge was only about capturing low yield passengers, you are ignoring history. Both AC and CP have had all Y aircraft in the past for just that reason. I recall the 229 seat 767-200, 301 seat L1011 and a version of the 747-100 with only Y on the main deck and 16 premium seats on the upper deck. That must have had more than 500 seats! If that’s all AC was looking for, then they’d do it again. But trust me, Rouge was about something entirely different. That need is now all but irrelevant and Rouge is fading away.

This is the second time you have mentioned banana bread on your PY continental breakfast. It must have kept you up at night. It must have been a short flight. Something like YYZ-LHR, with less than 7 hours flying time. If a full breakfast was served, it would be 90 minutes after finishing dinner.

I flew YYZ-ZRH last winter in PY and was offered a choice of hot or cold breakfast. The hot was an omelet with fresh fruit, (yawn), much like you’d get on a short domestic flight in J. But the cold breakfast was amazing ..... typical Swiss breakfast with thick cold ham, cheese and thick crusted bread. Just like my school days in Switzerland!

AC meets the competition with regard to service. Why would they offer a SQ style service on a YXE flight when they are not competing with SQ. For reasons not relevant, I fly to HKG a lot. AC’s J service is better than CX, (but Y not as good .... go figure).

I have flown on SQ and their hard product is excellent, but I find their cabin staff to be very robotic. They do what the “book” says and nothing more. Sometimes with a smile, usually not. By comparison, I flew on UA from ORD-HKG .... the hard product was okay, but the Flight Attendants were great. Typical American friendly and outgoing. I’d fly with them again in a heartbeat, SQ not so much.
 
B-HOP
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2000 8:09 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:45 am

The AC flights shifted from LHR-BOM-SIN to YVR-LHR-DEL by 1996, on a 74E, that 74E was also deployed to HKG three times a week. SQ's SIN-SEL/ICN-YVR used 74D before 343 and 772ER. SQ's LAS route were to provide a link between HKG and LAS in the run up to Macau's gambling right being open up with gambling executive shuttle between Macau (1 hour ferry ride from HK) and also selling holiday packages jointly with SFO, but the load is simply too low so it got the chop
Live life to max!!!
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:54 am

polaris wrote:

Both this, and your follow-up post, are more accurate and detailed than reports provided in various media and by some consultants. Inaccurate and incomplete info often enters into mythology and continues to be repeated. There is always more to any story. Both your posts capture the reality of the concerns at the time. Congratulations on two excellent posts!


One of the advantages of being in my 50s is that I was a young airline nerd when all this was happening. It was far easier to capture the “spirit” of the issue. Let’s face it, it’s pretty hard to gauge emotion when the internet is one’s only source.

My staple was the Toronto Globe and Mail, to which I still subscribe as it includes editorials ... or Aviation Week. The editorials there were quite eye opening to a 20 year old!

That’s why I love reading on here, the experiences of some of the (ahem) older folks. You’ll read far more than just pecking away at one’s iPad looking for a “source”. Cheers.
 
resting08
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 8:46 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 5:57 am

Any news of SQ restating SIN-YYZ/SIN-YVR routes with their a350 anytime soon. AC recently got approved for scheduled flight between Canada and Singapore

https://www.otc-cta.gc.ca/eng/ruling/a-2020-133
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:00 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
Anyway, can’t really disagree that BA and SQ probably behaved in a protectionist manner back then. Singapore and the UK have long given up on that type of “national champion” silliness. Meanwhile Canada is still handing out 3 - 4 weekly frequencies. And AC is still stuck in a “national champion” mindset to this day.

And that's really the point that keeps being missed in this thread. A lot changed between 1985 and 2009, and especially today.
And regarding the comment about "SQ could have flown non-stop if they wanted to" we all know that's non-sense. There was no aircraft capable of flying YVR-SIN non-stop with any meaningful payload and profitable yields. Even today something like SIN-YYZ is hardly a profitable proposition.
So what's the excuse about blocking EK? They're flying non-stop. Right.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 12:25 pm

airbazar wrote:
And regarding the comment about "SQ could have flown non-stop if they wanted to" we all know that's non-sense. There was no aircraft capable of flying YVR-SIN non-stop with any meaningful payload and profitable yields. Even today something like SIN-YYZ is hardly a profitable proposition.


Why is it “nonsense”?

YVR-SIN is roughly the same distance as YYZ-HKG, a route that has been flown profitably for almost a couple decades now. Not to mention China- YYZ/ORD/NYC, etc.

SIN-YYZ would be like SIN-NYC. The route would require a lot of premium cabin traffic, something always lacking with a lot of Canadian routes. But, SQ are masters of ULH flying, if they could have made YYZ work, they would have. They haven’t.

Bottom line is that there is not a lot of traffic between Singapore and Canada. As I said above, if one’s economic model requires an enroute stop, not for aircraft capabilities, but for revenue, then there is a flaw somewhere.

With regard to the Middle East carriers, that is always a huge thread drift and probably best left to its own thread.
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 3:28 pm

CrewBunk wrote:
Why is it “nonsense”?

YVR-SIN is roughly the same distance as YYZ-HKG, a route that has been flown profitably for almost a couple decades now. Not to mention China- YYZ/ORD/NYC, etc.

SIN-YYZ would be like SIN-NYC. The route would require a lot of premium cabin traffic, something always lacking with a lot of Canadian routes. But, SQ are masters of ULH flying, if they could have made YYZ work, they would have. They haven’t.

Bottom line is that there is not a lot of traffic between Singapore and Canada. As I said above, if one’s economic model requires an enroute stop, not for aircraft capabilities, but for revenue, then there is a flaw somewhere.

With regard to the Middle East carriers, that is always a huge thread drift and probably best left to its own thread.


Why is it nonsense? Fair question. Really depends on where one sits on the economic spectrum.

If one is a mercantilist and believes that passengers originating from country X are the “property” of airlines from country X and should therefore be denied any choice beyond what is required reciprocally by the country they wish to serve (country Y), then this notion that only airlines from country X or Y should be allowed to serve routes between X or Y is perfectly sensible.

However, between Adam Smith and the broader liberalization of air travel worldwide in the past two decades, this mercantilist notion is, well, outdated and nonsensical. Not least because none of it’s proponents here would countenance the notion of Samsung phone imports into Canada being linked to Blackberry exports to South Korea, or Apple Phones being subjected to quotas to keep RIM afloat. If one believes that consumers should be allowed to choose the product that they wish to use with their hard earned money, then any approach that says “no, thought shalt only fly airlines from country X or country Y between those two countries” will inevitably come across as nonsensical.

Ultimately, protectionist measures are not aimed aimed at protecting AC from SQ. They are aimed at protecting AC from Canadian consumers who, given the choice, would choose not to fly AC. You’re entirely free to disagree with me on that, but then it would beg the question: if people would still choose to fly AC, what difference does it make if SQ flies on the route too?

Sure there’s probably not enough traffic between SIN and YYZ/YVR to justify flying those routes. But there evidently is (or was) on ICN-YVR. Common sense dictates that Canadians would benefit from the competition. It’s probably why we have no issues with allowing significantly more competition in most other areas of the economy. But then again, most of those sectors don’t assume that Canadian consumers are their property. With some exceptions - like dairy farmers.

As an aside, I don’t think it’s lost on any of us that anything that reflects poorly on AC is inevitably someone else’s fault based on information that can rarely be verified. In this case SQ forced AC to petition the Canadian government to unilaterally terminate a bilateral agreement (and BA may have played a role too). Anything on record to substantiate the claim? No. Instead the public record suggests something else entirely. Reminds me of another poster’s claim many years ago, in which that person tried to pin the blame for this SQ thing on South Korea. That’s not to say that you are wrong; there’s just nothing to say that you’re right either. Which, when viewed through the prism of “always someone else fault”, leaves some of us unconvinced.

Anyway, to apply your logic: if one’s economic model requires their government to actively stop their home market from choosing other carriers, not for aircraft capabilities, but for revenue, then there is a flaw somewhere. (Might be the banana bread :P).
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 4:03 pm

It was not nonsense in that a route of that length, although on the longer end of the spectrum could very easily be profitable, with aircraft available during the last 20 years ..... if the business were there. It isn’t.

While “protecting” AC seems to be the flavour of the day, it is the way the current air service agreements are written. Canada being a democracy enjoys a very open government. If one does not agree with it, they are very accessible for comment or critique.

Now that Westjet is slowly becoming an international carrier along with Air Transat, they all benefit from the air service agreements. But .... it is a give and take, while it may appear to protect Canadian Carriers it does the opposite as well. Look at Cathay Pacific or KLM, for example. After playing by the rules, they have full access to the Canadian market. They are very successful against AC .... and there is nothing AC can do about it.

In my opinion, the only part of the Air Services I don’t agree with is the dealing with the Middle East carriers. After showing a need fulfilled and offering an excellent product to South Asia, they should have been allowed a daily flight. And by product, I don’t mean the existence of Banana Bread or whatever they are putting on meal trays ..... I mean excellent connections to many destinations not offered through Europe, at a reasonable price.

Because remember, it is price and schedule that attracts customers not cabin service. I get the feeling SQ is aiming that way as Scoot offers a far less opulent on board product. (You’d actually have to pay for your Banana Bread). ;)
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 8:56 pm

CrewBunk wrote:
It was not nonsense in that a route of that length, although on the longer end of the spectrum could very easily be profitable, with aircraft available during the last 20 years ..... if the business were there. It isn’t.

While “protecting” AC seems to be the flavour of the day, it is the way the current air service agreements are written. Canada being a democracy enjoys a very open government. If one does not agree with it, they are very accessible for comment or critique.

Now that Westjet is slowly becoming an international carrier along with Air Transat, they all benefit from the air service agreements. But .... it is a give and take, while it may appear to protect Canadian Carriers it does the opposite as well. Look at Cathay Pacific or KLM, for example. After playing by the rules, they have full access to the Canadian market. They are very successful against AC .... and there is nothing AC can do about it.

In my opinion, the only part of the Air Services I don’t agree with is the dealing with the Middle East carriers. After showing a need fulfilled and offering an excellent product to South Asia, they should have been allowed a daily flight. And by product, I don’t mean the existence of Banana Bread or whatever they are putting on meal trays ..... I mean excellent connections to many destinations not offered through Europe, at a reasonable price.

Because remember, it is price and schedule that attracts customers not cabin service. I get the feeling SQ is aiming that way as Scoot offers a far less opulent on board product. (You’d actually have to pay for your Banana Bread). ;)


That goes back to the question of O&D vs 5th/6th freedom. Sure, there’s no business on two specific routes, but there’s plenty of other business that (depending on your economic philosophy) should be catered to by whoever is willing to cater the route. Which is to say, consumers on ICN-YVR or LAX-NRT would be no worse off if SQ appeared as an option.

As to Canadian democracy and what it means for aviation, I think the current pandemic refund issue has blown a hole in the credibility of the democratic responsiveness of Canadian governance. Corporate welfarism or regulatory capture - take your pick.

As for KL, CX etc, it would seem that BA, by your own admission, did not play by the rules either, but here we are. Not sure what those rules are anyway. Be a country AC wants to fly to? Like those Caribbean islands that don’t have any airlines, but have open skies with us? The rules, insofar as they exist, seem arbitrary at best, obtuse at worst. There’s also a fundamental majority/minority (numbers, not ethnicity) issue here. Canadians on a.net, who would never step foot on PK (has it been banned again by the EU?) think it makes sense to limit 6th freedom supply and force the minority who need to go to Pakistan to fly PK anyway. In the context of this thread, it should be noted that KE had an interesting safety record in the 90s. And OZ has gotten much grief recently.

Anyway, fair point on price and schedule. A touch odd, given your dismissal of the schedule-related challenge SQ faced on ICN-YVR, but whatever. I don’t think Scoot is the future of SQ anymore than Rouge is the future of AC - with the noteworthy caveat that longhaul AC Y and ACr Y are basically the same product - PTVs (and free alcohol?) being the exception. SQ hasn’t quite turned it’s Y hard product into a Scoot product. And unlike ACr, it seems to provide value for money, rather than come across as an overpriced product.

To put it in perspective, AC’s favorite airline ranking guide reveals this:

SQ: 7/10 (value for money: 4/5)
Scoot: 5/10 (value for money: 3/5)
AC: 4/10 (value for money: 3/5)
ACr: 3/10 (value for money 2/5)

(No I don’t put any stock in Skytrax ratings, but AC folk here do. Never really understood why)
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 9:42 pm

The O&D “rule” is one quoted by our governmental officials as the reason for not granting further access to Canadian skies. Again ... their skies, their rules. The biggest difference I guess would be the “acid test” of the question “Would the route stand alone, were it not for 5th/6th freedom rights?”

I firmly believe that, Canada-Hong Kong, or the Netherlands, UK, France, etc would. I did not include BA or AF in my last note, as they too have full access to Canada, but AC carries more passengers than they do. In my example the Canadian Air Services Agreement “protects” CX and KL, as opposed to the reverse. The point I was making is they all played by the “rules” sometimes it works for Canada’s carriers, sometimes it works for the other carriers.

AC enjoys a lot of success with 6th freedom rights through Canada, but only on existing routes. I can’t think of any route flown by AC that would not be flown were it not for 6th freedom connections. You mentioned ultra low fares earlier .... that would be the reason why. On existing flights, AC can allot some seats at low fares knowing the flight would fly (profitably) anyway.

I think the biggest surprise was the premium passenger’s preference for connections through Canada as opposed to large US airports. Again, the “product” of a pre-cleared arrival into LAX of a (for example) BCN-YYZ-LAX, instead of BCN-JFK-LAX. It became very lucrative for AC.

Understand though that all of these examples are pre-COVID. Who knows what the future holds.

The Rouge/Scoot comparison is interesting. Long haul wide body Rouge, in my opinion, offered “too much” as you note, it wasn’t all that different from mainline AC. But .... that is an example of meeting competition as I mentioned above. In this case it would be Air Transat, who offers good cabin service for a leisure carrier.

But that is pretty well moot right now. The future of wide body Rouge is all but dead. As more A330s arrive, the Y cabin of those flights will be picking up Rouge routes. I am anxiously watching the cabin configuration of these A330s, if the “leisure” ones stick around, then to me, that is a clear indication of where wide body Rouge is going.

As for narrow body Rouge ..... that’s a guess at best. My guess is the A321s and A320s are staying, with only a few A319s as needed for longer range flights. All airlines will be smaller post-COVID.

I was always against Rouge, as I figured it would be a big flop. But the load factor and repeat numbers could not be refuted. It was a success for all it was meant to be. And trust me, I hated having to admit AC HQ was right and I was wrong. ;)
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:34 pm

CrewBunk wrote:
The O&D “rule” is one quoted by our governmental officials as the reason for not granting further access to Canadian skies. Again ... their skies, their rules. The biggest difference I guess would be the “acid test” of the question “Would the route stand alone, were it not for 5th/6th freedom rights?”

I firmly believe that, Canada-Hong Kong, or the Netherlands, UK, France, etc would. I did not include BA or AF in my last note, as they too have full access to Canada, but AC carries more passengers than they do. In my example the Canadian Air Services Agreement “protects” CX and KL, as opposed to the reverse. The point I was making is they all played by the “rules” sometimes it works for Canada’s carriers, sometimes it works for the other carriers.

AC enjoys a lot of success with 6th freedom rights through Canada, but only on existing routes. I can’t think of any route flown by AC that would not be flown were it not for 6th freedom connections. You mentioned ultra low fares earlier .... that would be the reason why. On existing flights, AC can allot some seats at low fares knowing the flight would fly (profitably) anyway.

I think the biggest surprise was the premium passenger’s preference for connections through Canada as opposed to large US airports. Again, the “product” of a pre-cleared arrival into LAX of a (for example) BCN-YYZ-LAX, instead of BCN-JFK-LAX. It became very lucrative for AC.

Understand though that all of these examples are pre-COVID. Who knows what the future holds.

The Rouge/Scoot comparison is interesting. Long haul wide body Rouge, in my opinion, offered “too much” as you note, it wasn’t all that different from mainline AC. But .... that is an example of meeting competition as I mentioned above. In this case it would be Air Transat, who offers good cabin service for a leisure carrier.

But that is pretty well moot right now. The future of wide body Rouge is all but dead. As more A330s arrive, the Y cabin of those flights will be picking up Rouge routes. I am anxiously watching the cabin configuration of these A330s, if the “leisure” ones stick around, then to me, that is a clear indication of where wide body Rouge is going.

As for narrow body Rouge ..... that’s a guess at best. My guess is the A321s and A320s are staying, with only a few A319s as needed for longer range flights. All airlines will be smaller post-COVID.

I was always against Rouge, as I figured it would be a big flop. But the load factor and repeat numbers could not be refuted. It was a success for all it was meant to be. And trust me, I hated having to admit AC HQ was right and I was wrong. ;)


“Their” rules, “their” skies. Highlights the nature of the problem. Decisions made by a “they” in what, by most countries’ standards, is a provincial town with a corresponding mindset. Hardly a surprise, then, that we’re decades behind the US and UK on air travel liberalization.

Either way, it’s still not clear what the rules are - beyond “do whatever a Canadian airline asks you to”. I’m sure someone, somewhere has a rationale for why Canadian taxpayer dollars were expended to negotiate an open skies agreement with Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and how that complies with the “rules”. Alternatively, it really is as obtuse as it looks - with “government officials” chasing small fish because the big ones are being vetoed by the folk who really call the shots.

I don’t think it matters who is flying traffic as long as traffic is being served. The US don’t care about SQ fifth freedom traffic. The UK doesn’t care about SQ 6th freedom traffic. If it’s true that AC does not rely on 6th freedom traffic to sustain routes, it is equally true that AC needs to be protected from competition to sustain those routes. What is the takeaway here is meant to be? That it’s worse to have to compete for 6th freedom traffic with no home market advantage, than it is to rely on government protection to keep consumers from choosing better products? Bit too mercantilist in my view, but to each their own.

I’ll leave the Rouge piece aside (not that I necessarily disagree) since it only serves as a reference point for Scoot, and Scoot is unlikely to pop up in Canada. However, the difference between AC and SQ, particularly in Y (which is how most people fly) reflects the “they” problem in a nutshell. SQ is widely recognized as one of the best in the world - it has quite literally developed the brand power and stature that wannabe “global champions” aspire to. AC, on the other hand recently found itself in the sub-par category on both TATL (better only than Norwegian), and TPAC (better only than UA and MU) in JD Power’s 2019 survey (for better or worse, they are considered more reputable and respectable on brand strength than Skytrax). Probably not quite the “global champion” “they” were hoping for, but pretty much what “their” way of doing things deserves.

Perhaps it’s time to throw SQ back in the mix with all of the freedoms, particularly 5th freedom. Might force AC to up it’s game. I think we can both agree that Canadians (at least everyone not in the employ of a Canadian airline) stand to benefit.

https://www.jdpower.com/business/press- ... tion-study
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:50 am

In theory, leisure Scoot should be more likely to appear in Canada than Singapore Airlines. Remember, price and schedule before cabin experience.

That is probably why Rouge has such high load factors and repeat rates. Set a good schedule at a reasonable rate, and it will be a success. Why on earth would Rouge, or Air Canada for that matter attempt to match the cabin service of an airline on the other side of the earth? Remember, Air Canada just had 6 record breaking years of profits. They are doing something right.

But, Air Canada does compete with cabin service where warranted. I remember years ago flying YYZ-MKE on an AC DC-9. The centre seats were blocked off and the cabin service was First in Economy. I asked the Purser, WTH? Apparently they were competing against Midwest Express. (Version 1).

That’s why service is different between countries in Europe, or some Caribbean islands remained as mainline when some were assigned Rouge. It’s all competition and AC usually steps up. I have no doubt if SQ arrived in Canada, AC would be offering SQ service.

It may be before your time, but I remember when North American cabin service was the best on the earth. Heck, look at the recent past, Canadian Airlines’ cabin service far exceeded AC’s, or Wardair .... their Economy service was the best in the world, not even SQ came close. Where are they now?

North American carriers sell to North Americans and what do they want, a cheap Y seat!
 
ElPistolero
Posts: 2078
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:44 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 1:33 am

There is, I think, a difference between what has always been held to be true, and what actually is true. Price matters in some markets, but that isn’t necessarily a hard and fast rule everywhere.

Here’s some findings from the JD Power survey I posted above:

In a stark departure from the price-driven culture of domestic airline customer behavior, the J.D. Power 2019 Airline International Destination Satisfaction Study,SM released today, finds that cost and fees are notably less important than in-flight services when it comes to delighting passengers on international flights.

“A low fare may be the best way to attract a first-time international passenger,” said Michael Taylor, Travel Intelligence Lead at J.D. Power, “but retaining passengers on routes to Europe and Asia is all about delighting customers with great in-flight experiences.”

- In-flight services—especially food and beverage—are key to passenger satisfaction

- Track record matters when it comes to airline selection: The primary drivers of airline selection among international passengers are past experience with the airline (40%); good customer service (36%); convenient scheduling (35%); reputation (33%); and lower ticket price (31%).

I suppose the long and short of it is that what holds true for North American travel, does not translate as easily elsewhere.

I really don’t see Scoot coming to Canada.
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 12:37 pm

CrewBunk wrote:
Why is it “nonsense”?

YVR-SIN is roughly the same distance as YYZ-HKG, a route that has been flown profitably for almost a couple decades now. Not to mention China- YYZ/ORD/NYC, etc.

Bottom line is that there is not a lot of traffic between Singapore and Canada. As I said above, if one’s economic model requires an enroute stop, not for aircraft capabilities, but for revenue, then there is a flaw somewhere.

YVR-SIN is actually significantly longer than YYZ-HKG because while the latter is a polar route, the former is a TPAC route with very strong head winds.
But nevertheless, now put those 2 together. A gas guzzling 270-seat plane on a long and thin route, with fuel prices at record highs was a non-starter. That was my point. So it's nonsense because you're only factoring in the aircraft capability not it's ability to make money. Even today, with significant;y more efficient aircraft, something like a 789 or A359 is still too much capacity.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 2:26 pm

airbazar wrote:

YVR-SIN is actually significantly longer than YYZ-HKG because while the latter is a polar route, the former is a TPAC route with very strong head winds.


Winds on the North Pacific were certainly a factor when I started flying in the area as a young DC-10 Second Officer. I got to watch the science evolve over the years as not only did aircraft capability improve, but also meteorology and flight planning also evolved.

Where 30+ years ago we always flew approximately the same route, with flight planning advances with more met information, a “minimum time track” could be determined. Add Russian overflight rights and any route is now possible.

In the past, grinding into the teeth of a 150 knot headwind, we were unaware that simply going 500 miles or so to the north, it could be avoided. Track miles were not normally more than a couple hundred miles longer, but the “time track” was often as much as a 1000 miles less!!!!

But ..... back to 2009 when Singapore Airlines made the decision to stop flying to Vancouver, as a daily flight was not allowed. (The huge worldwide economic downturn of the time was being ignored). They had already been flying SIN-LAX and SIN-NYC, for over 6 years! They possessed the aircraft and the knowledge for these very long flights. It is not “nonsense” that if there was a demand for nonstop flights to YVR from SIN, they could have done it.

Any ULH flight is a “gas guzzler”. By nature of the beast, an 18 hour flight has to carry fuel for the entire run. As opposed to two 9 hour flights. ULH showed the world an odd phenomenon, in that sometimes a flight stopping enroute uses less fuel. Unheard of before then, as the nonstop has to carry the last 9 hours fuel not necessary when stopping.

Bottom line is that the Air Services Agreement allowed it. SQ had the knowledge, experience and aircraft to do it. The only fly in the ointment is that 200+ passengers a day did not want to fly to Canada from Singapore.
 
blooc350
Posts: 173
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 5:10 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 3:32 pm

Image
 
airbazar
Posts: 10177
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:12 pm

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:31 pm

CrewBunk wrote:
Bottom line is that the Air Services Agreement allowed it. SQ had the knowledge, experience and aircraft to do it. The only fly in the ointment is that 200+ passengers a day did not want to fly to Canada from Singapore.

Correct, and no one is disagreeing with that. You just didn't bother to read my post so I'll repost the full sentence:
"There was no aircraft capable of flying YVR-SIN non-stop with any meaningful payload and profitable yields."
Meaningful payload and profitable yields is directly proportional to the demand for the route meaning exactly what you said: not enough people, not enough cargo.
 
User avatar
CrewBunk
Posts: 99
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 3:12 am

Re: SQ flights to LAS, YYZ & ORD and JFK via BRU

Fri Jul 31, 2020 4:57 pm

airbazar wrote:
CrewBunk wrote:
Bottom line is that the Air Services Agreement allowed it. SQ had the knowledge, experience and aircraft to do it. The only fly in the ointment is that 200+ passengers a day did not want to fly to Canada from Singapore.

Correct, and no one is disagreeing with that. You just didn't bother to read my post so I'll repost the full sentence:
"There was no aircraft capable of flying YVR-SIN non-stop with any meaningful payload and profitable yields."
Meaningful payload and profitable yields is directly proportional to the demand for the route meaning exactly what you said: not enough people, not enough cargo.

Yes, but you are inferring it’s the fault of the aircraft, when it’s not. When saying it is not capable of carrying a meaningful payload, you are assuming there is a payload to carry, but can’t. There isn’t. Let’s face it, Boeing could build an airframe that burned no fuel and the route would still be a dog.

Not only is there little traffic between the two countries, but as a connection point it doesn’t work for most destinations.

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