Quoting dank (Reply 101): EK's longest flight DXB-LAX is 7250nm and 16h 35m. EWR-SIN is 8300nm and 18h35m... that's not insignificant

Sure, but then again, why invest in NYC at such extreme logistics? Nothing's forcing them to. They had easier options.

Quoting Coal (Reply 54): I wouldn't call HKG well planned, not with the T2 fiasco, certainly not with the poor immigration facilities and the waiting times reminiscent of TBIT.

The T2 fiasco has nothing to do with the planning for airport operations; it was built as a landside shopping mall, clearly a commercial mistake which the Airport Authority has come to regret (do you hear that, Project Jewel?....). Immigration staffing levels, indeed very poor sometimes, again has nothing to do with airport planning.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 58): SIN is still a world class hub and SQ and world class airline, whatever their deficiencies compared to HKG and CX. That is due more to the exceptionality of Hong Kong and Cathay Pacific than any poor performance on the part of Singapore.

I am not debating that. My point is, that's what happens when aviation excellence is a national priority and money is no object. Dubai copied the model, less successfully in terms of the product, but probably more successfully in terms of commercial performance.

Quoting infinit (Reply 67): Expansion plans in the form of T2 and T3 were already on the drawaing board from Changi's conception in 1980.

Yes. It's called a master plan. Unfortunately they used the template of LAX, DFW, CDG etc., which is not efficient for hub operations and a disaster for retail (every shop has to be duplicated multiple times).

Quoting infinit (Reply 67): Just because Changi took the approach of building multiple smaller terminals instead of one big terminal like HKG doesn't mean it is poor planning. Have you ever tried to transit in SIN? I've gone between T2 to T1 and T2 to T3 and it is very well planned by any yardstick- I've never had to walk for more than 10 minutes.

As I said, it is poor for hub operations; do you think SQ enjoys flying out of two terminals? To solve this obvious deficiency they had to build a gazillion people movers, connecting each two nodes at the airport both landside and airside. The easy transfers prove you can buy your way out of any bad situation if money is no object.

Quoting infinit (Reply 67): On your other point about Changi being a vanity project, you do know that Changi is the largest airport in Southeast Asia by international passenger volume right? Unless you're implying the number of people they claim pass through the airport yearly isn't real and they've been making people up, that doesn't make any sense.

I'm not claiming they are making anything up in terms of passenger statistics. Singapore is an important business center, a magnet for tourists, and a successful regional (though no longer international) hub. Of course it has a busy airport. I'm just saying that building a mega-hub terminal when there is still much excess capacity in the existing terminal complex, and when the hubbing activity is relatively small and shrinking, is sheer vanity. Unlike Hong Kong (not to mention real accountable democracies), the Singaporean government did not have to present the public with a business case, or otherwise defend such lavish spending. Or did I miss something?

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 100): Quoting RJ321 (Reply 88): , I am just tired from hearing and reading many people blaming great airlines for the bad financial performance of other airlines. Like i have said, ME3 isn't any different than the other airlines out there. They are a reasonanly good airline with a great geography (for the target traffic flows) backed by a visionary cash rich govt. It would take a great effort to screw things up inspite of all these advantages.

And i forgot to mention one unparalleled thing that EK specifically (and QR,EY perhaps) has brought to the table; opening up secondary cities in Europe and India that previously would have required a stop at another hub or sometimes 2 hubs as was the case from seconary European cities to Australia. This is one place where i would give credit to the ME3.

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 107): The T2 fiasco has nothing to do with the planning for airport operations; it was built as a landside shopping mall, clearly a commercial mistake which the Airport Authority has come to regret (do you hear that, Project Jewel?....). Immigration staffing levels, indeed very poor sometimes, again has nothing to do with airport planning.

If HKIA T2 is not planned for airport operations, why did AAHK build check-in counters there? HKIA T2 has 0 gates and pax who check-in at HKIA T2 must take the internal train to the gates at T1. Is that what you call excellent planning? You are contradicting yourself there.

Though Changi Airport is split into multiple terminals, each individual Terminal has facilities of its own and departing/arrival pax do not need to take the skytrain to get to their gates (except for T3 internal since T3 is very long). Only transfer/transit pax may need to switch terminals depending on their next flight. More importantly, the skytrain ride are all less than a 5 minutes ride away.

For Project Jewel, there is a false general impression that SIN government if funding it. The answer is NO. Not a single cent from public funds is used to build Project Jewel. SIN government is only co-funding the capital investments for T5 and the third runway. Project Jewel is funded by Capitaland and Changi Airport Group and is actually a way for Changi Airport Group to achieve more revenue through non-aeronautical means. If you refer to audited accounts of CAG which are all published, Changi Airport has never incurred a loss and their profits over the past few years have even surpassed that of SQ (in fact, they made S$895m and generated more than S$1.2b in Free Cash Flow). CAG had also publicly stated that most of these profits are generated from their non-aeronautical sector. As competition between South-East Asian hubs become more intense, CAG will need to offer competitive airport rates to attract airlines. Hence, they recognise the need to improve their non-aeronautical revenues to compensate for this. Moreover, Changi Airport is less than 30mins away from all Singapore's Eastern catchment area. Access to the airport is cheap and Project Jewel will be a good way for SIN families to spend a day at the airport (and spend money).

In addition, some posters are saying that Changi Airport was split into so many terminals due to poor planning. You need to look at the 1970s master planning for Changi Airport before you say this. Changi Airport Terminal 1 was built way back in late 1970s and Terminal 1 was built based on traffic data during that period. It would be an absolute waste of public spending if a mega terminal was built back then. Hence, SIN built up the airport in phases with potential to expand operations in future with new terminals built adjacent to Terminal 1. If this isn't good planning I do not know what is. Don't forget Singapore is a tiny nation. It will be a huge waste of public money if T1 was built in 1970s, then in 2000s, demolish T1 and build a new mega Terminal at the existing location or build a new airport at a separate location (HKIA or BKK). Hence, the current split Terminal in a single location is based on years of planning. If you look at BKK which was built in late 1990s, they had hit full capacity and had to resort to opening DMK to accomodate LCC growth. SIN just don't have the luxury of land to explore this kind of option.

This is sad. It implies hard product and gauge out of line with what they need.

This does explain the A330s replacing the 77E.

Quoting Planeflyer (Reply 7):

It is quite a pickle between CX and EK. I wonder how much the QF/EK partnership has bitten into SQ's revenue.

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 9):

I don't understand SQ's position in *A.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 108): And i forgot to mention one unparalleled thing that EK specifically (and QR,EY perhaps) has brought to the table; opening up secondary cities in Europe and India that previously would have required a stop at another hub or sometimes 2 hubs as was the case from seconary European cities to Australia. This is one place where i would give credit to the ME3.

Eliminating "bridge hubbing" (connections with more than one hub) are just not customer friendly. The ME3 have the advantage of the 'short leg' to Europe vs. SQ and thus EK pioneered opening up secondary markets in all directions around their hub.

Ironic as EK modeled itself after SQ. They just offered the lowest cost product that customers were happy to pay for.


Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 110): I don't understand SQ's position in *A.

I'm not sure even SQ understands their position in Star.  

Same for TG, at least from a N.Am perspective.

Neither ever really leveraged the full extent of what their star relationship could've provided, even when they were flying ULH with those ridiculous A345s and likely losing their shirts in doing so.

Quoting sealand (Reply 109): pax who check-in at HKIA T2 must take the internal train to the gates at T1.

More than half of the passengers in T1 have to take the train too, and that number is set to grow when the Midfield Concourse opens and with the future Third Runway Concourse. Walk-to gates will be a rarity, which is the reality of mega-airports. So, that in itself is not a planning error.

Quoting sealand (Reply 109): each individual Terminal has facilities of its own and departing/arrival pax do not need to take the skytrain to get to their gates (except for T3 internal since T3 is very long).

Duplication of facilities is not a sign of good planning; quite to the contrary. As I said, I'm not denying Changi is user-friendly -- just that a price was and is paid for it.

Quoting sealand (Reply 109): If you refer to audited accounts of CAG which are all published, Changi Airport has never incurred a loss

CAG was formed in 2009. I find it perfectly plausible that they have been profitable, since they have been enjoying legacy capital investment made by CAAS, i.e. the Singaporean government.

Quoting sealand (Reply 109): Access to the airport is cheap and Project Jewel will be a good way for SIN families to spend a day at the airport (and spend money).

That may well be the case. A similar argument was made when T2 was built at HKG. But I agree that Singapore is different in this respect; locals do go to the airport to hang out.

Quoting sealand (Reply 109): It would be an absolute waste of public spending if a mega terminal was built back then. Hence, SIN built up the airport in phases with potential to expand operations in future with new terminals built adjacent to Terminal 1.

I readily concede that building T1 in the late 1970s was the right move; further, mega-terminals didn't even exist then, and the master plan Changi adopted was hardly unusual for the period, as the examples I cited earlier demonstrate. I'm not indicting the original planners -- just noting that Changi is hardly a marvel of good planning. It offers excellent customer service by virtue of a lot of duplication and at the cost of operational inefficiency.

Future planning mistakes, unfortunately, cannot be pinned on 1970s ignorance. Building a full-service mega-terminal, given the traffic trends at Changi, strikes me as pure hubris.

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 107): Yes. It's called a master plan. Unfortunately they used the template of LAX, DFW, CDG etc., which is not efficient for hub operations and a disaster for retail (every shop has to be duplicated multiple times).

What do you call the construction site to the SW of the main terminal building?

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 112): Walk-to gates will be a rarity, which is the reality of mega-airports. So, that in itself is not a planning error.

Ah, so you are aware of it I see. Ah, the reality of mega airports. I didn't know this. Silly me, so ignorant! Luckily most of SIN still has the benefit of walk-to gates.

Don't get me wrong. I love HKG. I particularly love the fact that even without living in HK I can use the biometric gates (through the HKIA frequent visitor program), which was an absolute time saver since I could use biometric gates at both ends when I was commuting SIN - HKG over a couple of years.

Btw, those long immigration lines are poor airport planning. There is no single airport in the world that gives you the arrival efficiency of SIN. I guess it does help to have 3 distinct terminals, unlike the mega terminal at HKG which makes immigration and baggage claim on par with some of the worst airports in the US.

Quoting sealand (Reply 109): Project Jewel is funded by Capitaland and Changi Airport Group and is actually a way for Changi Airport Group to achieve more revenue through non-aeronautical means.

  

Bingo.

Rgds
Coal

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 20): 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.

Their geographic location is their USP. The ME3 can offer one-stop flights from secondary European cities to secondary Asian and Australasian cities. One -stop to 300+ locations from your local airport is a huge draw. Why fly GLA-LHR-SIN-SYD when you can fly GLA-DXB-SYD for the same, or similar fare?

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 112): More than half of the passengers in T1 have to take the train too, and that number is set to grow when the Midfield Concourse opens and with the future Third Runway Concourse. Walk-to gates will be a rarity, which is the reality of mega-airports. So, that in itself is not a planning error.

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 112): Duplication of facilities is not a sign of good planning; quite to the contrary. As I said, I'm not denying Changi is user-friendly -- just that a price was and is paid for it.

You are saying that HKIA T2 is in itself not a planning error, but in the next line, you said Changi's duplication of facilities is not a sign of good planning. HKIA T2 has it's own check-in counters and immigration facilities. Isn't that in itself a duplication of facilities which you had said "is not a sign of good planning".

I'm not saying that HKIA is not a good airport. HKIA can be considered to be one of the top airports of the world. However, you are contradicting yourself when you say something about SIN and another about HKG when both are not that dissimilar.

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 112): CAG was formed in 2009. I find it perfectly plausible that they have been profitable, since they have been enjoying legacy capital investment made by CAAS, i.e. the Singaporean government.

And CAAS and CAG had to pay SIN government yearly in dividends, which is very similar to AAHK's operating model.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 111): I'm not sure even SQ understands their position in Star.

        

I think SQ could really bring something special to One World....   

Quoting BrianDromey (Reply 114): Their geographic location is their USP. The ME3 can offer one-stop flights from secondary European cities to secondary Asian and Australasian cities. One -stop to 300+ locations from your local airport is a huge draw. Why fly GLA-LHR-SIN-SYD when you can fly GLA-DXB-SYD for the same, or similar fare?

      - It is golden! Who would have thought 10 years ago, that I could fly from BNE to BUD or NCE with one stop in just under 24 hours! It is great for the consumer!

But seriously... With the ME3 taking advantage of their geographical location, Chinese Carriers growing like wildfire, a leaner and meaner Qantas, and huge LCC penetration into SIN - SQ are facing a war on all fronts. Singapore is probably the most difficult market for an airline to call home, and they are still profitable. I think it is a marvelous achievement!

[Edited 2015-08-06 01:37:33]

Quoting Coal (Reply 113): Btw, those long immigration lines are poor airport planning.

Again, they are not. They are poor staffing on the part of Immigration Department, something AAHK has been complaining about for years.

Quoting sealand (Reply 115): HKIA T2 has it's own check-in counters and immigration facilities. Isn't that in itself a duplication of facilities which you had said "is not a sign of good planning".

T2 has proven to be a planning mistake, although it was part of a bigger vision which was never realized, and which arguably was a planning mistake in itself. Anyway, I am far from a groupie of AAHK; the only points I want to make about HKIA are (1) Terminal 1 is a marvel of balanced efficiency, capacity, and level of service; and (2) future planning at HKIA has been subject to a rigorous (and for some controversial) planning and cost/benefit analysis, something which was completely missing when CAG announced the plans for Changi East and T5.

Quoting sealand (Reply 115): And CAAS and CAG had to pay SIN government yearly in dividends, which is very similar to AAHK's operating model.

Indeed it is, but while I don't have enough information, it stands to reason that an airport which has to operate and maintain 3 large terminals, with all the duplications, will offer a worse ROI compared to an airport which handles far more traffic with much less space, and which invests more prudently in expansion.

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 117): Again, they are not. They are poor staffing on the part of Immigration Department, something AAHK has been complaining about for years.

Even at full staffing levels you can easily be there for 1.5hrs waiting in line. I wonder why. Oh right. Because it is all one big mega terminal.

If only they had smaller, distinct terminals. Where have I seen that...

Rgds
Coal

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 107): Unlike Hong Kong (not to mention real accountable democracies), the Singaporean government did not have to present the public with a business case, or otherwise defend such lavish spending. Or did I miss something?

  That's a really under-appreciated luxury that some airlines have, and most do not

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 108): And i forgot to mention one unparalleled thing that EK specifically (and QR,EY perhaps) has brought to the table; opening up secondary cities in Europe and India that previously would have required a stop at another hub or sometimes 2 hubs as was the case from seconary European cities to Australia.

SQ could do the same, but it would require smaller aircraft since it doesn't have the traffic volume to the South and East that the ME3 do. MI does that now, but two carriers is sub-optimal compared to one.

I wonder why SQ has not entered into any joint ventures like many of their other competitors have. QF, NH, JL, the U.S. and Euro carriers all seem to have these types of financial arrangements.

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 110): I think SQ could really bring something special to One World....

I'm sure they would love to be in the same alliance with QF(/EK) and CX...  

Serious question- does SQ really have a close relationship with anyone? I always get the impression that they are a little arrogant and see themselves better than all the other airlines and above partnering with someone else (other than standard codeshares and interlines).

I was able to book AMS-SIN-KUL for 270 euros one-way recently. They can't be making money if they're selling seats that cheap.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 92): That's now 306 J seats NYC-HKG, all of which appear to be doing just fine-- vs 100 to SIN that ultimately failed.

You're really not comparing the distance between HKG-NYC and SIN-NYC, are you?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 92): Indeed, do that... and you'll see that DXB-LAX is essentially the same length as a route like SIN-SFO,

But 2 hours longer in the opposite direction due to the very strong head winds in the Pacific compared to the polar route that is DXB-LAX. LAX-SIN was an 18.5 hour flight. SFO would be 30 mins shorter. The only aircraft that can do that is the 77L. I doubt that even SEA-SIN would work with the 77W. There's no way a 77W can fly for 17 hours with a profitable load. EK's 77W's to LAX/SFO suffer(ed) a payload restriction.

Quoting dank (Reply 95): It's not distance by itself, it's flight time

  

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 96): Their passenger traffic is down YOY and Q1 revenue has been down 3 years in a row.

     
In 2014/15 RPk's are down .9% against a drop in capacity of .4%. So negligible but you are correct on that. Profits are up and at the end of the day that's all that matters. Passengers are slightly up YOY, 18,737 vs. 18,628 the previous year. 2012/13 they transported 18,210. So miniscule groth for the past 3 years but growth nonetheless.
https://www.singaporeair.com/pdf/Investor-Relations/Financial-Results/News-Release/nr-q4fy1415.pdf

Here's another link that shows that SQ passenger numbers have grown every year since 2009. Scroll down to the table titled "Annual passenger numbers (in millions) for SIA Group carriers: 2008 to 2014"
http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...the-farm-on-premium-economy-208677

So despite of all the talk about the ME3 and CX taking SQ's business, they have actually managed to have passenger growth every year for the past 6 years. Surely they must be cooking the books 

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 96): SQ doesn't have to compete with QR/EK???

They do on some level but people make it sound like they have to compete for every passenger. They don't have 100+ A380's to fill like EK or a sugar daddy like QR   They pick and chose the higher yield passengers which is why their yields are up despite declining revenues.

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 110): I think SQ could really bring something special to One World.

...like immeasurable discord?

Quoting polot (Reply 115): I always get the impression that they are a little arrogant and see themselves better than all the other airlines and above partnering with someone else

  

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): You're really not comparing the distance between HKG-NYC and SIN-NYC, are you?

Distance has nothing to do with the comparison as presented. At the end of the day, whether we're comparing nonstop seats or O&D, SIN is nowhere near the market to NYC or N.America as is HKG. Then combine that with its essentially useless location as a hub from this side of the world....

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): EK's 77W's to LAX/SFO suffer(ed) a payload restriction.

And yet apparently were optimal to flying a fully loaded 77L.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): Here's another link that shows that SQ passenger numbers have grown every year since 2009. Scroll down to the table titled "Annual passenger numbers (in millions) for SIA Group carriers: 2008 to 2014"

Right...the group. The LCCs are picking up the slack at mainline...and a large part of the future for the group...
http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...coot--tigerair-improvements-237749

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): So despite of all the talk about the ME3 and CX taking SQ's business, they have actually managed to have passenger growth every year for the past 6 years

...in the same article it shows how mainline yield has been down for four years in a row. It's getting hot(ter) down there.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): Surely they must be cooking the books

No one is suggesting that 

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): They pick and chose the higher yield passengers which is why their yields are up despite declining revenues.

I think that's a luxury that does not exist, as the market tells the airline what it can take, and not the reverse.

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 23): 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.

Are you kidding. B777 is the best thing out there....we do not really know what he meant, do we?

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 110): I think SQ could really bring something special to One World....

I would have agreed before the EK/QF partnership. Now that partnership is providing value that can only be matched by a close in hub (QR). In my opinion, SQ just needs to play nicer within the alliance. Whichever one they wish to join.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 117): So despite of all the talk about the ME3 and CX taking SQ's business, they have actually managed to have passenger growth every year for the past 6 years. Surely they must be cooking the books

As noted:

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 119): ...in the same article it shows how mainline yield has been down for four years in a row. It's getting hot(ter) down there.

I suspect that in this business climate customers are not willing to pay more for the better product in the quantities SQ needs (hence depressing yield). The art of managing an airline is finding out what customers will pay for.


Lightsaber

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 121): I suspect that in this business climate customers are not willing to pay more for the better product in the quantities SQ needs (hence depressing yield). The art of managing an airline is finding out what customers will pay for.

I don't think passengers do in general, but more importantly, SQ has several competitors with similarly high quality service in all cabins, whether it's EK, QR, CX, or others, and they're both better positioned geographically and cheaper.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 122): Quoting lightsaber (Reply 121): I suspect that in this business climate customers are not willing to pay more for the better product in the quantities SQ needs (hence depressing yield). The art of managing an airline is finding out what customers will pay for. I don't think passengers do in general, but more importantly, SQ has several competitors with similarly high quality service in all cabins, whether it's EK, QR, CX, or others, and they're both better positioned geographically and cheaper.

Yes, but my experience with SQ in SFO is that they are actually cheaper than CX. I was also favorably impressed by JL's new business class offering. And new timings for the SFO flight make onward connections to other parts of Asia much easier.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 118): Distance has nothing to do with the comparison as presented.

Well in that case there's no point in even arguing about if you think that 18-20 hour routes can be operated profitable with low yielding vacationers.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 119): Right...the group

No not the group, Singapore Airlines. Did you even open that link?

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 119): ...in the same article it shows how mainline yield has been down for four years in a row. It's getting hot(ter) down there.

Really, where?

Is it perhaps this link that says "Singapore Airlines Group has reported improved profits for the quarter and year ending 31-Mar-2015 (FY2015) driven by a recovery in yields." followed by "The SGD409 million operating profit represents the highest annual profit since FY2011."?
http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...ctivity-strategies-emerging-224825

Stop making stuff up please. Yields are up, profits are up, passenger numbers are up. Only people who aren't reading the facts can't see it.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 124): Really, where?

"SIA first quarter mainline yields have now dropped for four consecutive years" in big letters
http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...coot--tigerair-improvements-237749

Quoting airbazar (Reply 124): Stop making stuff up please. Yields are up, profits are up, passenger numbers are up. Only people who aren't reading the facts can't see it.

Mainline yield, passengers, ASKs, and RPKs are all down in Q1 15-16. Profit is indeed up.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 125): "SIA first quarter mainline yields have now dropped for four consecutive years" in big letters

And an excerpt under that heading in the article:
"SIA first quarter mainline yields have now dropped for four consecutive years. While the drop has been gradual the total decline has been more than 10%. The steady and consistent decline also indicates there has been a structural change in the marketplace which will likely impact SIA’s profitability over the long-term, particularly if fuel prices increase again."

-ir

Quoting airbazar (Reply 124): Well in that case there's no point in even arguing about if you think that 18-20 hour routes can be operated profitable with low yielding vacationers.

Which ALSO has nothing to do with the original comparison in context... so exactly what are you even trying to get at?

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 110): Singapore is probably the most difficult market for an airline to call home, and they are still profitable. I think it is a marvelous achievement!

It's big help that SIN is one of the world's major financial centers with a lot of high-yield premium O&D traffic.

Quoting AirNiugini (Reply 110): Singapore is probably the most difficult market for an airline to call home

Perhaps, though SYD/JNB could probably give that a run for its money any day.

Quoting polot (Reply 115): Serious question- does SQ really have a close relationship with anyone?

They have a JV with NZ and have expanded codeshare agreements with OZ, BR and TK in the last 3 years, all of whom compete with SQ to SIN. The airline also has a long standing codeshare agreement with NH and a stake in VA.

The CEO has said on several occasions that SIA need to build more partnerships due to the competitive nature of their operating environment.

[Edited 2015-08-07 23:39:03]



[Edited 2015-08-07 23:43:28]