SQ Reintroducing Y Class On A345 US Nonstops...

hodja · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:03 am

http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking...ngapore/Story/STIStory_782957.html

I always felt these all-business class routes were untenable....

Old thread:

SIA Reduces Non-stop SIN To US Flts (by LondonCity Jan 25 2009 in Civil Aviation)

BD338 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:12 am

Well, I can understand the need and why but, ouch, I wouldn't fancy that myself. I've flown 14 hours on SQ in Y (and it was very good) but even I was looking forward to the hour or so stopover in HKG to be able stretch out a bit. Another 4.5 hours would be tough! But will it be the "executive economy" they had previously which had quite a bit more space than regular Y.

RWA380 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:21 am

In order to keep the flights from taking restrictions, I'd expect you can't add too many Y seats on the A345, it's a bit heavy.

blink182 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:29 am

Will this be a true Y-class product like their 77Ws and A380s, or their original A345 product that looked and felt very much like an economy plus?

HKG212 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:30 am

Quoting hodja (Thread starter):
I always felt these all-business class routes were untenable....

Indeed. I always thought these were vanity routes. The O/D between Singapore and New York / Los Angeles cannot possibly sustain this, and SIN is not a good hub location for those cities except for a limited number of Southeast Asia destinations, and possibly Perth.

infinit · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:25 am

I always thought these flights were doing well. I used to think that these ultra-long hauls wouldn't be sustainable with Y with the fuel-costs as high as they are now.

But I guess it works the other way too then. One empty J seat on this flight (1-2-1 configuration) could have had 2 to 2.5 Y seats and if one of them was filled the airline would have earned at least a little there.

Motorhussy · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:39 am

Quoting blink182 (Reply 3):
or their original A345 product that looked and felt very much like an economy plus?

It indeed was a Y+ product with 2-3-2 config with a 37" pitch and a bit of a lounge/bar to stretch ones legs.

RWA380 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:51 am

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 6):
Quoting blink182 (Reply 3):or their original A345 product that looked and felt very much like an economy plus?

It indeed was a Y+ product with 2-3-2 config with a 37" pitch and a bit of a lounge/bar to stretch ones legs.

This what TG did on their A345's, J & Y+, unlike BKK, I thought SIN was a heavy J market I'm surprised the N/S can't make it without adding Y+.

Stitch · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:10 am

Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E+ because Business always went out full, but E+ went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

legacyins · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:21 am

In the end, as has been speculated, these routes have not been profitable since their launch. If things don't turn around, especially with the price of oil, I would expect these routes to be suspended.

RWA380 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:29 am

Bottom line, is adding a certain amount of Y+ seating going to make this route any more profitable? With the additional number of seats in a higher density than J, going to add enough revenue to the final profit or loss of that flight? Extra people + extra baggage = more weight / more fuel, right?

aerohottie · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:12 am

Quoting legacyins (Reply 9):
In the end, as has been speculated, these routes have not been profitable since their launch.

I personally think this is a stretch too far... but if you have a source??? (other than the unreliable ST article of course Smile

)

[Edited 2012-03-28 21:15:25]

blueflyer · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:48 am

I took the SIN-EWR flights a few times (very comfortable btw). I obviously didn't do a head count but it looked (close to) full most times. I can't help but wonder whether adding Economy (+) is actually just a ploy to lower the number of J seats and thereby be able to sell the remaining seats at a higher price...

legacyins · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:00 am

[quote=aerohottie,reply=11]I personally think this is a stretch too far... but if you have a source??? (other than the unreliable ST article of course &nbsp

[/quote

Infadent wisdom would suggest that they are adding Y/ Y+ because they are not filling J profitably.

I know it is a few years, but I found this quote from 2006. Fuel prices are similar to that time period. But, only the air carrier would know if the route is profitable.

Quote:

Intelligence
SIA Would Not Launch Ultra Long-Haul Flights Today
Staff
70 words
12 June 2006
Aviation Daily
1
Volume 364, Number 50
English
(c) 2006 McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Given a choice, Singapore Airlines would not launch ultra-long-haul flights today, CEO C. S. Chew told The DAILY. Its Singapore-Los Angeles nonstop service was profitable at the end of 2004, Chew said, but turned negative with the rising fuel costs. SIA operates daily Airbus A340-500 services to Los Angeles and New York with five aircraft.

Asiaflyer · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:04 am

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):

Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E+ because Business always went out full, but E+ went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

That's right, but since then SQ has changed SIN-NRT-LAX from 744 to A380, which is very attractive for J class passengers too.

BMI727 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:07 am

Quoting legacyins (Reply 13):
Infadent wisdom would suggest that they are adding Y/ Y+ because they are not filling J profitably.

Not necessarily. The company isn't just looking to make a profit, they're looking to make the maximum profit. If you're selling the last 20 business class seats at $1000 each and you think that you can sell 40 economy plus seats for $700, then your decision is quite easy, regardless of how the overall profit looks at that instant.

[Edited 2012-03-28 22:07:49]

XT6Wagon · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:10 am

Quoting legacyins (Reply 9):
In the end, as has been speculated, these routes have not been profitable since their launch.

one thing you have to be careful of is that a route that might be losing money each flight is still the best option avalible to the airline. SQ has to pay for the plane, and its overhead. It does this regardless of if the plane sits or flys. So if the money made on the flight is more than the cost to fly the route.... you will do it even at a loss since you lose more parking it.

The low resale and lack of market demand makes punting the frames onto the used market a rather nasty financial problem.

rogercamel · Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:01 am

I may be wrong, but haven't SQ recently (within the past year) changed from 747 to A380 on SIN-NRT-LAX and SIN-FRA-JFK?

Could this change not be a reflection of the J capacityon the A380 and balancing the J and Y capacity across the flights based on the planes now operating??

EY460 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:12 am

CX has recently introduced premium economy on some of his planes. Let's hope SQ comes up with a new premium economy for his A345 and then gradually expanding it to other planes if it is popular.

celestar · Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:51 am

I think SIA should face the reality and cut off this flight completely.
Flying 16 hours or more, no matter how comfortable it can be in business class, still is a drag and this is not Concord where you can afford to charge premium. SIA need to be more careful before overextending themselves. In today's uncertain economic times, airlines face tough external factors and challenges to stay profitable.

Talaier · Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:59 am

Quoting legacyins (Reply 9):

In the end, as has been speculated, these routes have not been profitable since their launch. If things don't turn around, especially with the price of oil, I would expect these routes to be suspended.

With the barrel easily heading north of 150$ for an extended period of time we are going to see a lot of these Asia-US ULH disappearing.

qf002 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:38 am

Hmmm, interesting news. Does anybody know if this will be Y+ or just regular Y? The article just says they are fitting 'an Economy product'...

I guess it was inevitable that something had to give when SQ brought the A380 on SIN-NRT-LAX and SIN-FRA-JFK. Personally, I think this move is a good one -- it allows them to keep the flight at daily while reducing J capacity. We could also see LAX return to daily...

SQ might also be starting to feel the sting of the move towards cheaper corporate airfares. It would make sense to roll out a Y+ product if they were seeing significant amounts of J class traffic forced to fly Y or Y+ instead of J. This market is now virtually lost to CX in terms of North America.

ORDJOE · Thu Mar 29, 2012 11:59 am

I have also heard loads on this flight are good and for the EWR flight, going from New York to SIN would have a good deal of J traffic considering that it is the only nonstop and two world class financial centers. I suppose as always good loads do not necessarily mean good yields. Can they take much cargo on these flights.

I will say I have always wanted to take this flight purely as an aviation enthusiast, now with Y I might be able to as I cant afford a J ticket and one can not use UA miles for these flights.

jfk777 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 12:11 pm

Thai Air's A345 has 113 y seats in the rear cabin at 36 inch pitch, their Y+ is 42 inches. SQ has 34 J seats in the same cabin, 100 j class seats currently with no Y & F. While 66 J seats sound about right for SQ I doubt they are going to place 113 Y class seats or any number close to 100 seats. IS SQ ging to keep 80 J with a small 50 seat Y Class, maybe ?

huaiwei · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:05 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E+ because Business always went out full, but E+ went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

The article mentions that while demand up front was there "pre-Lehman", but companies are now cutting back and the demand has shifted to the back of the plane.

The article also mentions that the plane's configuration presents deployment headaches, as flying it on short hops to closer cities can eat into the J profits on those routes by introducing too much J capacity.

Meanwhile, nothing is confirmed yet. Personally I would naturally hope to see Y+ reintroduced so that I can pay for a flight across the world from my own pocket!

nycdave · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:39 pm

I worked in i-banking in NYC, and knew people who flew that route on a near monthly basis. It nearly always went out full. For people in NYC wanting to do business in SIN, it's pretty much the ONLY option that does not require losing at least half a day of work at either end, or at the very least breaking up your rest smack dab in the middle to groggily get up and shuffle through LHR, FRA, or worse, LAX, to make a connection. Even if you don't lose half a day of work, and don't need a good night's rest, a connection will cost you at LEAST 8-10 hours r/t... and for financiers, that time is a goodly chunk of money.

NYC and SIN are two of the biggest finance hubs in the world, and there is PLENTY of traffic between them that is willing to pay a premium for saving hours in the air, and arriving better rested (not to mention avoiding the potential complications/delays/lost bags of a connection).

That said, it's hard to make such routes profitable at a high fuel price, even with the premium people will pay.

Aside from jacking up the price of the seats, the better option may be exactly what was said here:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 15):
Not necessarily. The company isn't just looking to make a profit, they're looking to make the maximum profit. If you're selling the last 20 business class seats at $1000 each and you think that you can sell 40 economy plus seats for $700, then your decision is quite easy, regardless of how the overall profit looks at that instant.

(although the numbers would be a bit different)

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 4):
Indeed. I always thought these were vanity routes. The O/D between Singapore and New York / Los Angeles cannot possibly sustain this, and SIN is not a good hub location for those cities except for a limited number of Southeast Asia destinations, and possibly Perth.

The flight is mostly O&D, and yes, there's enough O&D to sustain it quite well -- though possibly not with the fuel pressures.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E+ because Business always went out full, but E+ went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

Exactly what I always thought. I'm guessing they just want to give another try, see if the change in the economy means they can now fill the E+ seats.

Quoting celestar (Reply 19):
Flying 16 hours or more, no matter how comfortable it can be in business class, still is a drag and this is not Concord where you can afford to charge premium. SIA need to be more careful before overextending themselves. In today's uncertain economic times, airlines face tough external factors and challenges to stay profitable.

For some people, the time savings (and yes, it is sizable -- the n/s runs about 18 hours, while the fastest connections run 21-22 hours) and eliminating the risk of a delay or mishap in connection is worth it.

Ferroviarius · Thu Mar 29, 2012 1:58 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E+ because Business always went out full, but E+ went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

Possibly, it had been a good decision at the time THEN to fly Business, only, whereas today and for some time to come a mixed configuration would be more adapted to the demands of the market.

Ferroviarius

docpepz · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:09 pm

The flight does go out full on Fridays to Mondays for SIN-EWR and vv. Many times it has 98 J. Midweek though, it is half full. But SQ has to offer a daily frequency for yields. Most of it is O&D traffic.

For SIN-LAX the loads are not that great, maybe 75% average? I'm sure the breakeven load factor for that flight is not 75%.

Doing some very rough revenue analysis:

64j at $10,000 round trip and 117 Y at $2600 roundtrip gets you $944,000 in revenue

98J at $10,000 gets you $980,000 - That's just 3.8% more revenue, and the elasticity of demand for J is huge.

The reconfiguration seemed silly from the start. As does the all upperdeck JCL on the A380, and SQ cannot fill 86J most days on most routes anyway.

The JCL product they have, while big, wide and luxurious, is so space inefficient and must kill their yields because the return per square metre is much lower than their competitors. Emirates fits 64 J into the space that they fit in 42 J on the 77Ws. And SQ isn't charging more than EK these days on most routes.

traindoc · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:28 pm

I flew the original configuration in Y (EWR-SIN) in 2006. The seats were quite good and I did OK. I then flew Y from SIN to HKG. However, from HKG back to SFO, I upgraded to J as I needed to rest and get some sleep.

sq_ek_freak · Thu Mar 29, 2012 2:59 pm

Quoting BD338 (Reply 1):
But will it be the "executive economy" they had previously which had quite a bit more space than regular Y.

To be honest having flown the flight between LAX and SIN about 10 times "quite a bit" is stretching it. SQ's product was in my opinion inferior to TG's Premium Economy product on the same route, offering 42" pitch versus SQ's 37''. The difference was obviously very noticable, and the service was way better on TG - an actual upgraded meal - (SQ's was nearly identical to normal Y, with the exception that they served some sort of champagne) whereas TG used real cutlery and linens. With a near identical flight time, TG served three meals in all classes versus SQ serving two meals. Cabin crew were essentially neck and neck, with maybe the SQ contingent being a bit more polished than their Thai counterparts.

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 4):
Indeed. I always thought these were vanity routes. The O/D between Singapore and New York / Los Angeles cannot possibly sustain this, and SIN is not a good hub location for those cities except for a limited number of Southeast Asia destinations, and possibly Perth.

I always thought SQ funneled a good deal of premium passengers from CGK/KUL and even MNL on these flights on top of the SIN O&D traffic? Prior to Garuda's meteoric rise of the last year or so, wasn't SQ pretty much the defacto national carrier of Indonesia?

Quoting motorhussy (Reply 6):
It indeed was a Y product with 2-3-2 config with a 37" pitch and a bit of a lounge/bar to stretch ones legs.

Again, lounge/bar is stretching it a bit - but yes there was I think three of four windows worth of space at the rear of the aircraft that had a little counter top where they kept the cookies, fruits, water and juices mid-flight. Probably had enough space for 2-4 passengers to stand around at any one time. The crew were always happy to chat though since the space kind of spilled over into the aft galley. I distinctly remember having a long conversation with a great cabin crew member Farzana, who looked like she was straight out one of SQ's Singapore Girl ads, and was anything but robotic, joking around, and talking about a wide range of topics.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E because Business always went out full, but E went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

From my memory of the route, both J and Y+ was always full or rather close to it.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 21):
I guess it was inevitable that something had to give when SQ brought the A380 on SIN-NRT-LAX and SIN-FRA-JFK. Personally, I think this move is a good one -- it allows them to keep the flight at daily while reducing J capacity. We could also see LAX return to daily...

This might be possible given that presumably now with the A380 on both LAX and JFK flights SQ is offering more premium seats than they ever have to North America, which in this economy might have to be adjusted.

KFlyer · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:23 pm

To be honest I do not think that this route has been profitable for a whole year at any point - and I do not see the same operation (345 to NYC nonstop) continue in five years time if the fuel price remains high. A 789 nonstop ? That could work - but still not without a Y+.

Flighty · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:42 pm

Fuel prices. Just think of it. Such a huge aircraft for an E-190 load of people, times 18 hours? Total vanity project imo! Fuel bill must be eye watering.

The point is, oil is at $125 and SQ must feel an uncontrollable urge to put more seats in.

[Edited 2012-03-29 08:45:43]

ben175 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:49 pm

Can I just say that my three best flights ever have all been on SIN-EWR and SIN-LAX. Whenever I fly Perth-America I always opt for the non-stop service - I really hope SQ can sustain these two routes.

airbazar · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:50 pm

Something doesn't add up. If they're losing money, how is adding Y going to fix that especially when you can't add a true Y cabin and it's already been proven that Y passengers were willing to pay a premium for the non-stop?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 8):
Interesting. It's been said SQ took out E+ because Business always went out full, but E+ went out rather empty so they decided to just go all-Business when their new hard product became available.

That's what i heard too but a while back I also suggested that if SQ introduced A380 service to NYC, the non-stop option would lose premium passengers in favor of the newer and much more confortable A380 service, even with 1 stop. I'm still standing by my statement. I have a feeling that the A380 is taking premium customers away from the nonstop route. I know I would opt for the A380 if it was up to me.

trex8 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:52 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
Something doesn't add up. If they're losing money, how is adding Y going to fix that especially when you can't add a true Y cabin and it's already been proven that Y passengers were willing to pay a premium for the non-stop?

They may want more flexibility in where they can send those A345s besides these 2 routes.

glbltrvlr · Thu Mar 29, 2012 3:53 pm

Quoting traindoc (Reply 28):
I flew the original configuration in Y (EWR-SIN) in 2006. The seats were quite good and I did OK.

I flew the original config in J several times both directions between LAX-SIN. For 16-18 hours it was tolerable, but only just. I can't imagine doing it in coach, even with a little extra leg room. The problem is that the market for those non-stop seats are companies that won't pay for employee travel in J any more. Even on business travel, I'd take a connection for the break.

It's kind of interesting to watch the pendulum swing. I can recall a first class trip to Australia years ago on UA. The cabin and seats were on a par with what you find up front on a domestic flight these days. As Business has evolved into something that far exceeds First a few years ago, the airlines are now trying to recreate a business class that companie will pay for.

qf002 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:19 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
Something doesn't add up. If they're losing money, how is adding Y going to fix that especially when you can't add a true Y cabin and it's already been proven that Y passengers were willing to pay a premium for the non-stop?

If there are 30 J seats empty of each plane, SQ is effectively wasting the space taken up by them. If they can fill 80-100 Y class seats in the same space, then at least they are generating some revenue from the space in the aircraft.

So really, if it's proven that Y pax are willing to pay for the non-stop, then they'd be mad not to try and fill the plane up consistently.

MaverickM11 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:21 pm

These have to be rough routes; I don't see why SQ doesn't just ground the 345 fleet and call it a day. The aircraft have no resale value but at these fuel costs I can't imagine they're covering cash.

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 29):
I always thought SQ funneled a good deal of premium passengers from CGK/KUL and even MNL on these flights on top of the SIN O&D traffic?

They might, but they're doing so at the same fare as anyone else not operating a ULH on one of the legs, such as via NRT, HKG, PEK, etc..

trex8 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:32 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 37):
The aircraft have no resale value but at these fuel costs I can't imagine they're covering cash.

And with SQs book keeping practice they are probably worth zero on the balance sheets already.. They could use them for routes much longer than the A333s can do but not ULH.

yyz717 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:50 pm

Quoting hodja (Thread starter):
I always felt these all-business class routes were untenable....

Agree with this statement. I thought the all-business class layout was due, in part, to ensure the nonstop capability of the 345 on these routes?

Anyway, I'm surprised SQ has not replaced these 345's with the 77L.

sq_ek_freak · Thu Mar 29, 2012 4:53 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 37):
They might, but they're doing so at the same fare as anyone else not operating a ULH on one of the legs, such as via NRT, HKG, PEK, etc..

Didn't SQ charge a hefty premium for the non stops to the USA even when Executive Economy existed? I remember having the choice of about $1,200 via NRT or a little over $1,700 on direct....is that what you were referring to? If that premium is enough to cover the costs of operating the ULH is another matter I suppose...

MaverickM11 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:04 pm

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 40):
I remember having the choice of about $1,200 via NRT or a little over $1,700 on direct....is that what you were referring to?

For the nonstop I sure hope so! But I meant for one stop itineraries to CGK for example--why would anyone pay a premium for a 17 hour flight to SIN and then a short hop to CGK versus 14 hours to HKG and then a 4 hour hop to CGK?

CO787EWR · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39):
Anyway, I'm surprised SQ has not replaced these 345's with the 77L.

Probably cheaper to operate the more inefficient A345 then buying brand new 77L's

YULWinterSkies · Thu Mar 29, 2012 5:13 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39):
Quoting hodja (Thread starter):
I always felt these all-business class routes were untenable....

Agree with this statement. I thought the all-business class layout was due, in part, to ensure the nonstop capability of the 345 on these routes?

Not exactly, they used to have a small Y+ at the beginning. A classic F-J-Y setting would not work out, however. And would not work out either in terms of market demand.
I think it's been discussed before, so yes a 77L technically has more range than an A345, but this is only if the auxiliary tanks in the cargo deck are installed. And obviously at the expense of cargo. Which in the case of SIN-EWR might be a hurdle as cargo must be significant and high yielding between these 2 major commerce hubs.
A 77L without the extra tanks would make it fine, but in a configuration similar to that of the A345.
But, the 77L fuselage is shorter than the A345 and allows for less rows of J class, and then less seats, as SQ uses the same configuration across in J on Airbii and 777.
So, it seems like the A345 actually is the best option there.

The reintroduction of Y (although I imagine it will be Y+) may have to do with more companies now being reluctant to pay J for as many people as they used to do in the past. Do they need the non-stop? Yes certainly. Do they need the J with ever-improved comfort (that exceeds what F used to be 2 decades ago)? Not always.

Stitch · Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:16 pm

Quoting yyz717 (Reply 39):
Anyway, I'm surprised SQ has not replaced these 345's with the 77L.

A 777-200LR, while more efficient, is not going to be amazingly so and with SQ already having paid off their A340-500 fleet, the capital costs of adding five 777-200LRs makes such a scenario financially untenable (even if SQ gets half off, that would be upwards of $690 million).

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 43):
I think it's been discussed before, so yes a 77L technically has more range than an A345, but this is only if the auxiliary tanks in the cargo deck are installed.

The 777-200LR actually has a good bit more range with the standard fuel capacity than the A340-500. When both are carrying 55t of payload, the 777-200LR will fly 8250nm compared to 7000nm for the A340-500.

At a 45t payload, the 777-200LR can fill two auxiliary tanks and fly 9000nm. Three tanks allows a payload of ~40t, which it can fly 9500nm.

[Edited 2012-03-29 11:17:06]

Viscount724 · Thu Mar 29, 2012 6:46 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 33):
That's what i heard too but a while back I also suggested that if SQ introduced A380 service to NYC, the non-stop option would lose premium passengers in favor of the newer and much more confortable A380 service,

Why is the J product on the SQ A380 more comfortable than the A345? I thought they were almost identical.

Asiaflyer · Thu Mar 29, 2012 7:32 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):
Why is the J product on the SQ A380 more comfortable than the A345? I thought they were almost identical.

It is not any significant difference in comfort between the A380 and A345 in J-class.
I think the point is that those services are now equal in terms of standard, while when the 744s was in service, the A345 was the preferred choice from comfort point of view.

airbazar · Thu Mar 29, 2012 8:39 pm

Quoting nycdave (Reply 25):
I worked in i-banking in NYC, and knew people who flew that route on a near monthly basis. It nearly always went out full. For people in NYC wanting to do business in SIN, it's pretty much the ONLY option that does not require losing at least half a day of work at either end, or at the very least breaking up your rest smack dab in the middle to groggily get up and shuffle through LHR, FRA, or worse, LAX, to make a connection. Even if you don't lose half a day of work, and don't need a good night's rest, a connection will cost you at LEAST 8-10 hours r/t... and for financiers, that time is a goodly chunk of money.

Sorry none of that makes sense. Comparing SQ's EWR-SIN with the JFK-FRA-SIN, it's an extra 2hrs eastbound and 3hrs westbound, on the same plane, and plenty of time to sleep on the way to SIN. How do you figure "at least 8-10"?

Quoting qf002 (Reply 36):
If there are 30 J seats empty of each plane, SQ is effectively wasting the space taken up by them. If they can fill 80-100 Y class seats in the same space, then at least they are generating some revenue from the space in the aircraft.

So really, if it's proven that Y pax are willing to pay for the non-stop, then they'd be mad not to try and fill the plane up consistently.

Sorry, that was a typo on my part. It's been proven that passengers were NOT willing to pay a premium for the non-stop. They were not able to fill 80-100 Y seats before hence why they stopped offering Y .

The one thing that changed and that could be the difference, is that CO(UA) is now in *A and SQ can get a lot of feed at EWR. So they may be able to find a bigger pool of Y passengers that may be willing to pay the premium for the non-stop.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 45):

Why is the J product on the SQ A380 more comfortable than the A345? I thought they were almost identical.

I haven't flown an A380 but everyone raves about how much more comfortable and quiet it is compared to everything else. And the hard product is also better than on the old ratty 744's.

So basically from JFK you get an A380 with the same J product as well as F for those who can afford it and 2 hours in FRA to stretch your legs and get some fresh air. You still arrive in SIN at 6:30am, with plenty of time for a full day of work. If you ask me, the 1-stop option via FRA is a no-brainer.

fxramper · Fri Mar 30, 2012 12:23 am

Is this across the board for N.America? The EWR-SIN is fine with all business class imho.

Quoting RWA380 (Reply 2):
In order to keep the flights from taking restrictions, I'd expect you can't add too many Y seats on the A345, it's a bit heavy.

...especially on EWR-SIN.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 12):
I took the SIN-EWR flights a few times (very comfortable btw). I obviously didn't do a head count but it looked (close to) full most times. I can't help but wonder whether adding Economy (+) is actually just a ploy to lower the number of J seats and thereby be able to sell the remaining seats at a higher price...

...the few times I've used it for work (4x) it was 100% full both ways.

yyz717 · Fri Mar 30, 2012 2:04 am

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 43):
so yes a 77L technically has more range than an A345, but this is only if the auxiliary tanks in the cargo deck are installed. And obviously at the expense of cargo. Which in the case of SIN-EWR might be a hurdle as cargo must be significant and high yielding between these 2 major commerce hubs.
A 77L without the extra tanks would make it fine, but in a configuration similar to that of the A345.
But, the 77L fuselage is shorter than the A345 and allows for less rows of J class, and then less seats, as SQ uses the same configuration across in J on Airbii and 777.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 44):
A 777-200LR, while more efficient, is not going to be amazingly so and with SQ already having paid off their A340-500 fleet, the capital costs of adding five 777-200LRs makes such a scenario financially untenable (even if SQ gets half off, that would be upwards of $690 million).

SQ has a fleet strategy though of keeping its fleet very young (which argues in favour of getting rid of the 345) and the 77L would have commonality with the 773ER fleet. But, if these 2 LH routes are marginal, then new capital 77L's might not make sense.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net