Maybank: 'SQ Longhaul Loss Making Since FY09'

MaverickM11 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:13 pm

"According to Mohshin Aziz, Associate Director of Equity Markets (Research) at Maybank Investment Bank, SIA’s management warned that analysts are “more optimistic than the company is” when it comes to the flag carrier’s future prospects."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/distre...8DYmYxBHBvcwM0BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--

"In particular, he highlighted that SIA’s long-haul routes have been almost consistently loss-making since FY09 as its competitors have refined their strategy and successfully established themselves into SIA’s markets."

Polot · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:25 pm

Also from the article:

“Regional peers have upped their game and encroached into SIA’s markets whilst the middle-eastern carriers continues to drink up SIA’s milkshake. Long-haul flights are in structural decline, short and medium haul is where the money is,” he noted.'

Which is, not coincidentally, where basically all of SQ's growth as been lately (Silkair, Scoot, more A330s etc).

Stitch · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:32 pm

So Middle East carriers operating low-comfort (10-abreast) 777s are taking significant traffic away from SQ's high-comfort (9-abreast) 777s?

This contradicts ape - er, a.net - law!

tortugamon · Tue Aug 04, 2015 7:44 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
SIA’s management warned that analysts are “more optimistic than the company is”

What a statement!

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
In particular, he highlighted that SIA’s long-haul routes have been almost consistently loss-making since FY09

That comes as a surprise to me. I thought they were not doing well but they are still making a profit so I thought it was at least profitable on long haul.

Quoting polot (Reply 1):
Long-haul flights are in structural decline, short and medium haul is where the money is,” he noted.'
Which is, not coincidentally, where basically all of SQ's growth as been lately (Silkair, Scoot, more A330s etc).

And why they see to be going a different direction and launching smaller aircraft on long haul missions (A359 mission) and have ordered more A359 Regionals and 787-10s for regional flying.

It does make me wonder if we will see a fleet of A380s larger than 24.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):

So Middle East carriers operating low-comfort (10-abreast) 777s are taking significant traffic away from SQ's high-comfort (9-abreast) 777s?

This contradicts ape - er, a.net - law!

Awesome!

tortugamon

airbazar · Tue Aug 04, 2015 8:08 pm

This makes little sense to me. With the flood of LCC's at SIN, it's hard to imagine short and medium haul being that profitable.

747megatop · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:10 pm

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 3):
That comes as a surprise to me

It is surprising that it came as a surprise to you. It is no secret that ME3 have made significant inroads into SQ's market share. Competition from CX hasn't helped either. This article (2 year old) takes a detailed look at the competition SQ is facing (be sure to read the section under the title "SIA has lost more ground to Emirates, Etihad & Qatar than Cathay" more closely) -

http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...work-airline-giants-diverge-125074

tortugamon · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:21 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 4):
This makes little sense to me. With the flood of LCC's at SIN, it's hard to imagine short and medium haul being that profitable.

I think when they say SIA they are talking about the whole company. And on short/medium haul the company is doing ok because they have every price segment/service level covered in their market (Scoot, Silk, etc). However on long haul they really only have SQ and that part of the business does not sound like it is doing well. At least that is my interpretation.

tortugamon

Planeflyer · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:21 pm

Trapped between CX and ME3! Yikes!

PacificBeach · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
So Middle East carriers operating low-comfort (10-abreast) 777s are taking significant traffic away from SQ's high-comfort (9-abreast) 777s?

Perhaps they are doing it with their A380s?

DLPMMM · Tue Aug 04, 2015 9:27 pm

Their poor relationship with other Star alliance members might be part of the problem as well. When I was Star Gold for a few years, SG never made it easy to choose them on code shares or RTW tickets.

Prost · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:19 pm

A part of me is saddened by this. I admire Singapore Airlines, their fabulous crews, and their route network. If they can't convince customers to pay enough to make top notch service profitable, it really is the end of an era. I understand the ME3 offer nice premium cabins, but Singapore Airlines has always been a premium airline nose to tail.

aviationaware · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:25 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
So Middle East carriers operating low-comfort (10-abreast) 777s are taking significant traffic away from SQ's high-comfort (9-abreast) 777s?

The ME3 and Cathay have added more capacity in those markets than demand has grown, so naturally yields have come down. Add to that SQ's much less convenient geolocation and you have a recipe for a very difficult situation. That's why SQ is very happy about the A350 coming, because it takes away the unpopular decision to go 10 abreast on the 777 fleet perspectivally, which would probably be unavoidable in this marketplace.

AirNiugini · Tue Aug 04, 2015 10:30 pm

When the article states Longhaul, is that just Europe and the Americas? Or in Australia and NZ included in that view?

BestWestern · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:05 pm

Apart from the fact that

1 scoots breakeven load factor is higher than 100% - even with transfer pricing and anti trust.
2 tiger has struggled to breakeven in the past
3 silkair load factors are terrible due to LCC competition.
4 SQ is the only really profitable part of the organisation

The article makes sense

Oh, and to Singapore - you find a higher proportion of A380s and A350s from the ME3 - rather than higher density economy cabins - the ME3 compete with better hardware here.

747megatop · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:13 pm

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 12):
Or in Australia and NZ included in that view?

I think the article considers Australia/NZ also part of SIA's long haul routes; here is a quote from the article - "SIA's largest long-haul market is to/from Australia/NZ ..."

avek00 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:20 pm

The mythology of "US carriers bad, everyone else good" finally dies on a.net. Hallelujah!

mjoelnir · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:20 pm

I looked at the numbers, annual report and so on. SQ itself is making a profit and they are doing the long haul. The profit of SQ is the bigger part of the profit of the SQ group, so the main part does not come from short haul.
Pax seems to bring in the money including the subsidiaries, engineering is positive and cargo is in the minus.

IMO this "report" is just hot air.

dank · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:23 pm

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 7):
Trapped between CX and ME3! Yikes!

Until you can get to SIN non-stop from the US reasonably, CX will have an advantage to destinations in SE Asia from the US. The ME3 really make it hard from Europe.

BestWestern · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:26 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 15):

The mythology of "US carriers bad, everyone else good" finally dies on a.net. Hallelujah!

Keep on dreaming. The article makes no sense.

behramjee · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:35 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):
"In particular, he highlighted that SIA’s long-haul routes have been almost consistently loss-making since FY09 as its competitors have refined their strategy and successfully established themselves into SIA’s markets."

So why does SQ want to further add salt into its own wounds by wanting to restart USA nonstop flights to LAX and EWR as soon as possible when it knows it will bleed heavily?

Quoting polot (Reply 1):
Also from the article:

“Regional peers have upped their game and encroached into as SIA’s markets whilst the middle-eastern carriers continues to drink up SIA’s milkshake. Long-haul flights are in structural decline, short and medium haul is where the money is,” he noted.'

Which is, not coincidentally, where basically all of SQ's growth as been lately (Silkair, Scoot, more A330s etc).

There are pros and cons to this I feel:

Pros for SQ

A simple solution to this is for the SIN Govt to do a U Turn on their open skies policy with the ME3 carriers and limit all Middle East based carriers to a double daily frequency only using any aircraft type. After all it is their sovereign land and they have the right to do what ever they want in order to protect their vested interests.

Yes it may go against their free market principles but when a mega institution like SQ of theirs is pointing out a big hurdle in their pathway to achieving greater success, the Govt might need to take a strong hard look at the type of competition on offer that has ulterior motives. For example, with the exception of DXB which sees over 200,000 O&D pax annually flying to/from SIN, no other GCC city comes remotely close to matching even half of that demand level. The triple daily QR flights from DOH cater solely to onward traffic via DOH to Africa, Middle East, Europe and U.S. East Coast.

Cons for SQ

Inconvenient product out of certain EU points with high volume traffic to East Asia/Australia such as Manchester which is operated via MUC thus essentially making the pax journey a 2 stop one en-route to their final destination. Loads on CX's new MAN-HKG route have been good for the first months and its operated nonstop using a B77W. One can expect it to go daily once the A359s arrive next winter.

Non daily product to key EU business and leisure centres versus the 1 stop competition that offers multiple daily or at least daily service to MXP, BCN and FCO.

747megatop · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:37 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 15):
The mythology of "US carriers bad, everyone else good" finally dies on a.net. Hallelujah!

The term good and bad is very relative.
Moreover, we are in an era (which i would say started around 2000) where ME3 have created serious problems for carriers from multiple regions (NA - US3 & Canadian airlines; EU - EU3; South/East Asia - 9W, AI, SQ) by capturing market share aggressively. IMO this is kind of unparalleled. So, really doesn't matter if the airline is crappy (AF for example) or kickass world class like SQ..ME3 will keep adding routes, keep flying A 380s to new destinations where no other A380 flies and keep buying planes as if they are on a shopping spree in COSTCO while SIA will keep losing market share.

Bottom line is...1 airline successful, profitable & growing aggressively out of the ME3 region, well ok, that is possible. 2 airlines?..well maybe, but i would start scratching my head. But 3? Well that is too much to believe. It is like saying UA,DL & AA all hubbing out of DFW; being successful, profitable and growing + adding routes and planes out of there as though there is no end in sight for the expansion.

There hasn't been a world class airline like SQ and i don't think there will ever be; truly and sadly the end of an era.

WROORD · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:41 pm

They should have never ordered A380. B777 would be a much better option for them. They could have buy a handful of B747-8 for their high density routes...

cedarjet · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:47 pm

I'm not sure SQ is doing so badly, but anyway there are two major ways they can improve — they don't mix well with the Star Alliance partners at all, and their website is atrocious, crashy, weird Times New Roman disguising hot links, just the pits. They're the opposite of United (great, simple, reliable website, awful onboard product and service).

AngMoh · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:51 pm

Quoting WROORD (Reply 21):
They should have never ordered A380. B777 would be a much better option for them. They could have buy a handful of B747-8 for their high density routes...

Please not this s%$t again...

BTW the SIA CEO stated that they need the A350s because the current long haul fleet is not efficient enough to support expansion. As new long haul routes are opened with 777s, it can be deducted that they see a problem with the efficiency of the 777s.

And don't even start about the 747-8... This is really wearing Stars and Stripes coloured sunglasses.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 13):

Apart from the fact that

1 scoots breakeven load factor is higher than 100% - even with transfer pricing and anti trust.
2 tiger has struggled to breakeven in the past
3 silkair load factors are terrible due to LCC competition.
4 SQ is the only really profitable part of the organisation

1) Scoot will turn profitable by the end of the year thanks to a combination of getting 787s (the 777s were phased out in rapid succession) and linking up with Tiger
2) Tiger has recently turned from loss making to profitability
3) Silkair is expanding and profitable (although not much)

MaverickM11 · Tue Aug 04, 2015 11:59 pm

Quoting behramjee (Reply 19):
So why does SQ want to further add salt into its own wounds by wanting to restart USA nonstop flights to LAX and EWR as soon as possible when it knows it will bleed heavily?

Every day the one stops to the US are less and less optimal. A nonstop might not be better but it certainly would offer a better schedule/network to US passengers.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 2):
So Middle East carriers operating low-comfort (10-abreast) 777s are taking significant traffic away from SQ's high-comfort (9-abreast) 777s?

This contradicts ape - er, a.net - law!

I am shocked. Absolutely shocked.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 13):
Oh, and to Singapore - you find a higher proportion of A380s and A350s from the ME3 - rather than higher density economy cabins - the ME3 compete with better hardware here.

Better hardware? The ME3 are cheaper, and that's the problem. SQ is trying to stay/go up market, and that is a dead end in this industry. The students have become the master.

mjoelnir · Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:14 am

Why are people believing an article blowing hot air? Everybody can go on the homepage of Singapore Airlines, have a look at the numbers.
The main money earner in the SQ group is SQ itself and it is doing it by doing long haul.

MaverickM11 · Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:40 am

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 25):
Why are people believing an article blowing hot air? Everybody can go on the homepage of Singapore Airlines, have a look at the numbers.

"SIA’s management warned that analysts are “more optimistic than the company is” when it comes to the flag carrier’s future prospects."
That's why. And the outlook is not on the SQ site....

LAX772LR · Wed Aug 05, 2015 12:40 am

Surprised we haven't seen: "....but but but, SQ just needs to improve its service!" yet.

How long will the denial continue: "Service" will never be the differentiating factor that price and schedule are... and (specially from the Americas) SQ is at a disadvantage in BOTH against the ME3 and CX.

Quoting dank (Reply 17):
Until you can get to SIN non-stop from the US reasonably, CX will have an advantage to destinations in SE Asia from the US.

They'll still have a major advantage even then, anyway.

There's essentially nowhere that's more efficient to get to from USA via SIN than via HKG: India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc... all quicker via HKG, which has many carriers offering dozens of daily nonstops to the N.America.

Contrast that to SIN which at its peak, had one carrier offering two nonstop flights.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 24):
it certainly would offer a better schedule/network to US passengers.

Than what?

qfvhoqa · Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:10 am

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 12):
When the article states Longhaul, is that just Europe and the Americas? Or in Australia and NZ included in that view?

Are you referring to the Yahoo article in the OP, or the CAPA article quoted further down thread? SQ's use of A333s to Australia would probably place it in medium haul.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 14):
I think the article considers Australia/NZ also part of SIA's long haul routes; here is a quote from the article - "SIA's largest long-haul market is to/from Australia/NZ ..."

The Yahoo article claiming that long haul is in decline does not define long haul. The CAPA article puts Australia/NZ in the long haul category.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 13):
Oh, and to Singapore - you find a higher proportion of A380s and A350s from the ME3 - rather than higher density economy cabins - the ME3 compete with better hardware here.

That might be the case for the ex-SIN market, but SQ is losing a lot of their 6th freedom traffic like Europe-SE Asia/Australia to ME3. In these markets ME3 are using plenty of 777s with high density Y cabins.

Quoting mjoelnir (Reply 16):
IMO this "report" is just hot air.

Interestingly the article does not quote anyone from SQ, rather only an analyst who spoke with SQ.

Quoting behramjee (Reply 19):
Cons for SQ

I agree - SQ is not without issues on long haul. SQ has previously had a more comprehensive EU network than CX, but this is changing with CX starting ZRH & MAN recently, and BCN & DUS coming soon.

SIA747Megatop · Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:33 am

The author of the article was Head of Investor Realtions at AirAsia from 2004-2010 and said article is an interpretation of the outlook SIA gave at its analyst briefing.
Interesting to note that the Group has maintained a very similar outlook over the last several quarters.

I recommend reading the Outlook and Q&A section of the transcripts from the past analyst briefings, the most recent one should be uploaded soon.

http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/.../global_header/analystbriefing.jsp

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 26):
That's why. And the outlook is not on the SQ site....

??

Outlook is in the news release under every header on the following page.

http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/...global_header/financialresults.jsp

MarcoPoloWorld · Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:12 am

No, the summary of the latest quarter is actually "Singapore Airlines Reports Higher Profits"

It's the usual suspects - including the OP - having an agenda here. It roughly goes: US network carriers are being consistently ranked last, but that's what pax really want (even though they don't state it directly), and Walmart service is what running an airline should be all about, and nothing but.

Yeah, it's all about short-sightedness and returning value to shareholders and execs immediately, not to customers. Yet with disgusting and gut-wrenching stock buybacks upward of $3,000,000,000 (in the case of United), it is clear that customers of the US3 will never receive full value for their fare - and let's not even talk about their employees.

It is utterly pathetic to go to reputable airline ranking sites and see the regular customer reviews, what a world of difference there is when you follow the reviews of the US carriers - consistent stories of missed connections, gradually less comfortable seats, and inconsistent customer service....

I just don't understand the trolls here that literally enjoy playing the role of evil - lesser is better, airplanes should never be comfortable, good service will never be successful and should never be rewarded, and the list goes on and on.

No, the best airlines in the world are not on a deterministic course toward extinction, but feel free to always skew the facts in favor of the crappy US3 if you wish. Just don't come whining as the ME3 make inroads in the world market....

lutfi · Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:45 am

But the rise in LCC does show that many pax want safe, on time, transport. Not a restaurant in the sky. Heck, even for the legacy airlines, 90% of passengers are in economy, showing that most pax don't want to pay for the extra comfort of Business or First.

caleb1 · Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:50 am

MarcoPoloWorld, I could not agree more!

pa747sp · Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:00 am

When I first started working for SQ in 1990, I went to a company induction course. They identified then that EK was the biggest airline threat to SQ. They have known for a long time the risk EK poses, and the reasons why. Interesting that they were pretty spot-on, even then.

incitatus · Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:13 am

If there is an airline that got shafted by EK, it is SQ.

LAX772LR · Wed Aug 05, 2015 3:46 am

Quoting incitatus (Reply 34):
If there is an airline that got shafted by EK, it is SQ.

I wonder if they're proud that an airline/territory learned from their example so well? ...touch to be mad at being out-SQed by someone else.

jacobchoi · Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:39 am

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 20):

CX is a world class airline

MrHMSH · Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:51 am

Quoting avek00 (Reply 15):
The mythology of "US carriers bad, everyone else good" finally dies on a.net. Hallelujah!

Not for this a.netter.

Quoting WROORD (Reply 21):
They should have never ordered A380.

Why?

Quoting WROORD (Reply 21):
B777 would be a much better option for them.

That's probably why they use it then!

Quoting WROORD (Reply 21):
They could have buy a handful of B747-8 for their high density routes...

Why?

Coal · Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:01 am

Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 30):
the trolls here

Move along folks, nothing to see here. Just MaverickMD11 being his usual, SQ-trolling self.

Just read an interesting, related article:

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapor...-changis-big-expansion#xtor=CS1-10

If the Singaporean government (a shareholder of SQ via Temasek) was that worried about EK and the ME3, they wouldn't be pumping the billions into T5 (and beyond).

I think SQ has done remarkably well. Sure, there is pressure from the ME3 and LCCs, but SQ will survive and thrive as new airplanes and new technologies develop.

Rgds
Coal

Aither · Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:23 am

Quoting lutfi (Reply 31):
But the rise in LCC does show that many pax want safe, on time, transport. Not a restaurant in the sky. Heck, even for the legacy airlines, 90% of passengers are in economy, showing that most pax don't want to pay for the extra comfort of Business or First.

In cities like Singapore, HKG, New York etc. you still have an increasing number of premium travelers who care about comfort. The world is getting richer and most of the riches live in a few places.

SQ is a premium product meaning it can basically fly only to the big cities where premium demand is. Whatever these are long or short routes. The problem is that there are not so many big/premium cities out there which limits their growth potential.

Before cutting long haul routes they should think of their contribution to the network.If SQ stops flying to PER, I would subscribe the Emirates frequent flyer program...

RyanairGuru · Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:50 am

It's really interesting that SQ identified EK as a threat in 1990, when they were five years old and had less than 20 aircraft. The reason they would have known that is pretty simple: Dubai photocopied Singapore's business model, and Emirates SQ's. Emirates have out-SQd SQ, and SQ have (sensibly) responded by focussing on being a smaller but more premium carrier. Where that takes them in the future is anyone's guess, but there is no reason to doubt their longevity.

SATexan · Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:09 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Thread starter):

"In particular, he highlighted that SIA’s long-haul routes have been almost consistently loss-making since FY09

This statement reinforces the half empty IAH-SIN flights I have taken a few times..

LAX772LR · Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:29 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 38):
If the Singaporean government (a shareholder of SQ via Temasek) was that worried about EK and the ME3, they wouldn't be pumping the billions into T5 (and beyond).

Why so sure?

anrec80 · Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:29 am

Quoting SATexan (Reply 41):

This statement reinforces the half empty IAH-SIN flights I have taken a few times..

This is where I am a bit surprised as well. IAH is the strongest hub for UA, with plenty of South American and regional connections. I personally know people who ticket separately United flight and SQ-61/62 to get to Moscow. It's like the whole market is yelling at SQ - do better job at interlining with UA!!!

HKG212 · Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:43 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 27):
There's essentially nowhere that's more efficient to get to from USA via SIN than via HKG: India, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc... all quicker via HKG, which has many carriers offering dozens of daily nonstops to the N.America.

Therein lies the crux of it. SQ's long-haul network (and, while we are at it, Changi Airport itself) grew on the back of the Kangaroo Route. Now with EK et al, that growth model is simply not sustainable, and no other geography rationally makes SIN a hub besides few nearby destinations in SE Asia. Most recent growth at SIN and the SIA group is related to the growth in tourism to Singapore, and mostly regional tourism at that. SQ long-haul service is increasingly niche.

Quoting SATexan (Reply 41):
This statement reinforces the half empty IAH-SIN flights I have taken a few times..

SQ tried to leverage the brand with fifth-freedom rights, but that clearly hasn't gone far enough, and from this quote I guess at least some of those routes are not very successful.

Quoting Coal (Reply 38):
If the Singaporean government (a shareholder of SQ via Temasek) was that worried about EK and the ME3, they wouldn't be pumping the billions into T5 (and beyond).

Oh wow. You don't really know Singapore (or the Straight Times) very well, do you?

Changi Airport is basically a vanity project of the Singaporean government. It is already well over capacity and with minor tweaks (and that third runway, now in military use) could easily accommodate all foreseeable growth for many years to come using the existing terminals. But there is no accounting for spending on it, as the reconstruction of T4 a few short years after it first opened as the Budget Terminal richly illustrates (not to mention the way all the LCC activity comfortably folded into the older terminals). They don't really need T5, certainly not as it is currently designed, but they certainly won't learn about it from their official cheerleading media.

mjoelnir · Wed Aug 05, 2015 7:47 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 26):
"SIA’s management warned that analysts are “more optimistic than the company is” when it comes to the flag carrier’s future prospects."
That's why. And the outlook is not on the SQ site.

But if somebody is declaring that long haul is loss making for SQ since 2009 that is simple a lie, that you seem to take up without checking the facts. And repeating the lie does not make it true.
SQ is earning money with long haul and has done it all the years since 2009.

Kashmon · Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:14 am

Quoting Aither (Reply 39):

CX is doing fine and some of their aircraft have a greater premium density than SQ... so your claim about there not being enough premium demand is nonsense...

CX sends 202 J seats a day direct ( 256 including the Vancouver flight) to the NYC region

SQ could not even manage a 100 seats direct

and the claim that ME3 being funded by a never ending pile of cash cannot be put on CX.

so either SQ management is not doing so well or

HKG just has more premium traffic than SIN!

Quoting Coal (Reply 46):

What use is all that planning if you cannot get the volume of business HK has...
and speaking of planning
what HKG does with 1 terminal, SIN needs 3, wait 4, possibly 5 to achieve...
when efficiency is compromised in spite of " planning" , planning has failed...

saying that
SQ ain't going to just sit around, they have a more long term view, look at their investment in Vistara, the Indian market is going to be huge in the next 2 decades
whereas CX? no real investment in their own backyard ( CA does not count, CX gets nothing from it and no control)

but just like QF, I have no sympathy for airlines that create their own suicide machines ( JQ,Tiger, Scoot etc)

business for dummies, do not create a competitor to your own business!!
CX and NZ understood that and are doing exceedingly well...

BestWestern · Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:47 am

Vistara will not be a success story - the Indian domestic market isn't a premium one. Scoot is a crazy idea and has failed to approach breakeven even with transfer pricing and route swaps.

Cathay doesn't need two brands. Singapore certainly doesn't need five.

dc10lover · Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:07 am

You either become the (very) best airline to compete or lose. It is called competition.

HKG212 · Wed Aug 05, 2015 9:12 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 46):
Sure, the ST is the largest inter-company memo in the world, but at least Singapore is a place that has the foresight to do effective planning years ahead (unlike messy, dirty, smelly HK).

I agree when it gets to Singapore in general. Changi Airport is a different story altogether -- throwing good money after bad to cover up poor planning and buy positive SKYTRAX ratings. Any government in the developed world plowing billions into unnecessary projects like Project Jewel and T5 would be skewered by the press and the public, but the Singaporeans are just beaming when the ST tells them such projects will "cement Changi's status as a premium hub" or whatever.

Yes, we have terrible urban planning in HK (unlike Singapore), and many other failings. But our airport is just phenomenally well-planned, efficient and comfortable, without resorting to crowd-pleasers like fields of orchids or show-off pieces like a swimming pool no one ever uses.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net