UA Mulls Non-Stop US-Singapore Flight

covert · Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:30 am

Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall, but according to Aviation Week UA is giving serious thought to starting a route to SIN now that they have aircraft on order that potentially could make it viable.

http://aviationweek.com/awincommerci...ating-nonstop-us-singapore-service

zeke · Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:34 am

Who in their right mind would fly ULH with UA ?

KarelXWB · Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:43 am

Yes it seems UA evaluates the A350-900ULR for these long flights.

http://twitter.com/winglets747/status/674354422449840130

Same source says UA also evaluated the 787-9 but it would face a too large seat block on the westbound sector.

NH203 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:53 am

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Who in their right mind would fly ULH with UA ?

We'll let's see what kind of J they put in these birds.

jfk777 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:54 am

Singapore Airlines would start flying the same route and kill them. IF UA were to do such a thing it would have to be from ORD or SFO, you can count on SQ starting a nonstop if United were to undertake such a flight.

Singapore in the past flew nonstop to LAX and Newark(why I have wondered) when it flies their A380 to JFK.

SKAirbus · Wed Dec 09, 2015 11:58 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
Singapore Airlines would start flying the same route and kill them. IF UA were to do such a thing it would have to be from ORD or SFO, you can count on SQ starting a nonstop if United were to undertake such a flight.

SQ is going to start flying non-stop to the US again. They announced it relatively recently and will use A350-900ULRs in a low density config to LAX and EWR/JFK.

cedarjet · Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:12 pm

Would be great to have nonstop SFO-SIN, even on United.

NH203 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:17 pm

If this materializes, I'd say it will be from SFO, as that is their fortress hub.

USAirALB · Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:25 pm

I know they are most likely dying to get rid of the remaining intra-Asia flights, so this would not surprise me. That said, I wonder why UA flies both HKG-SIN and NRT-SIN. I flew HKG-SIN-HKG back in February and it was packed in all cabins and the vast majority of the passengers seemed to be in transit to the USA. That said, it cost me only 150USD to do HKG-SIN-HKG, so yields cannot be that great.

N776AU · Wed Dec 09, 2015 12:26 pm

I didn't know the ERJ-145 had that kind of range. Impressive, really.

jetblue1965 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:19 pm

This flight would be a really effective counter punch against most of the NE Asian competitors, and among the strongest, CX. SFO-SIN nonstop makes the most sense from UA's network, and would allow them to finally cut the SIN tags once and for all, handing them over to ANA instead.

Another strategy is to start with 789 using seat blocking of 20-30 on the westbound, then switch to 359ULH when it's ready in 2018-2019.

From UA's eyes, this is more about solidifying the SFO hub rather than any sort of pissing match with SQ.

DolphinAir747 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:23 pm

I can't understand the lack of SQ nonstop SFO SIN. Definitely doable with the 77W no?

redzeppelin · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:27 pm

Certainly possible with 77L. Maybe UA could convert a few of the upcoming 77Ws to 77Ls and start this really soon.

airbazar · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:39 pm

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 12):
Certainly possible with 77L. Maybe UA could convert a few of the upcoming 77Ws to 77Ls and start this really soon.

It's probably a lot more efficient to do it with a 789 even with blocked seats.

deltal1011man · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:52 pm

Quoting N776AU (Reply 9):

I didn't know the ERJ-145 had that kind of range. Impressive, really.

damn beat me to it.

ERJ-145XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXR, drop tanks and all

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
Singapore Airlines would start flying the same route and kill them.

I personally think SQ will only add NYC and LAX to SIN. UA's only logical hub to add from is SFO.

question, what engine will the 359LR have? Trent XWB-84s or Trent XWB-97s?

KarelXWB · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:53 pm

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 14):
question, what engine will the 359LR have?

Trent XWB-84.

deltal1011man · Wed Dec 09, 2015 1:57 pm

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 15):

Thanks Karel

I wonder if this opens up the possibility of a regular 359 order to help replace some 777s........

Stitch · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:16 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Who in their right mind would fly ULH with UA?

Corporate accounts and Mileage Plus flyers come to mind.

Quoting NH203 (Reply 7):
If this materializes, I'd say it will be from SFO, as that is their fortress hub.

I agree. With a possibility of ORD / IAH down the road.

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 16):
I wonder if this opens up the possibility of a regular 359 order to help replace some 777s........

UA has a significant A350-1000 order on the books.

deltal1011man · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:18 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

UA has a significant A350-1000 order on the books.

I know, but they are more for 744 replacement. Some of the PW As and ERs are starting to get up there in age.

Plus the TXWB-84 and TXWB-97 are pretty different which is why I don't really see a small subfleet of just 359LRs for 1-2 ULH routes.

Stitch · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:22 pm

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 18):
I know, but they are more for 744 replacement. Some of the PW As and ERs are starting to get up there in age.

UA will probably have less than 20 747-400s in the fleet when the first of their 35 A350-1000s arrive, so it stands to reason that a significant portion of those A350s will be used to replace (and up-gauge) current 777-200ER missions. Add the almost 45 787-9 and 787-10 they have on order, and the 777-200 fleet replacement should already be pretty much covered.

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 18):
Plus the TXWB-84 and TXWB-97 are pretty different which is why I don't really see a small subfleet of just 359LRs for 1-2 ULH routes.

If they're all under RR TotalCare, which I fully expect, then UA doesn't care how (dis)similar they are as RR will be handling all maintenance.

[Edited 2015-12-09 06:23:37]

deltal1011man · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:26 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):
Add the almost 45 787-9 and 787-10 they have on order, and the 777-200 fleet replacement should already be pretty much covered.

I thought the bulk of those 787 orders were meant to replace the 35 763 fleet? I figured some of the 78Js would replace some 77-200A flying also.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 19):

UA will probably have less than 20 747-400s in the fleet when the first of their 35 A350-1000s arrive, so it stands to reason that a significant portion of those A350s will be used to replace (and up-gauge) current 777-200ER missions.

I figured we would see some extra frequency with the 35J to replace the 744 fleet (much like DL will only have 7 or 8 744s active as 359s start rolling in but they aren't planning to replace other aircraft with them)
even then 1 for 1 you are only talking about being able to replace 15 of the 70+ 777s.

MaverickM11 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:28 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Who in their right mind would fly ULH with UA ?

Quoting NH203 (Reply 3):
We'll let's see what kind of J they put in these birds.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):

Singapore Airlines would start flying the same route and kill them.

UA already commands a higher fare on SFOSIN and SFOHKG than SQ. If the point of sale is majority US based, UA will likely continue to command a premium over SQ if both offer a nonstop.

slider · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:34 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 21):
UA already commands a higher fare on SFOSIN and SFOHKG than SQ. If the point of sale is majority US based, UA will likely continue to command a premium over SQ if both offer a nonstop.

Not to mention SQ would be the beneficiary of beyond connects via Star codeshare.

zeke · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:34 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):

Corporate accounts and Mileage Plus flyers come to mind.

Thanks for the laughs

MaverickM11 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:37 pm

Quoting slider (Reply 23):
Not to mention SQ would be the beneficiary of beyond connects via Star codeshare.

Which direction? Beyond SIN there's not much to connect to, beyond SFO availability is probably shut down to the bare minimum on UA, hence the VX relationship

jfk777 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:52 pm

Quoting skairbus (Reply 5):
SQ is going to start flying non-stop to the US again. They announced it relatively recently and will use A350-900ULRs in a low density config to LAX and EWR/JFK.

We al know that SQ is coming back with nonstops.

avek00 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 2:59 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):

Singapore Airlines would start flying the same route and kill them.

Actually, it's SQ that would be at grave risk if UA launches SFO-SIN nonstop services. Remember, United can take passengers from the top 50-100 US markets and get them all onto a SFO-SIN nonstop; SQ cannot replicate that dynamic for a number of reasons.

Quoting slider (Reply 23):

Not to mention SQ would be the beneficiary of beyond connects via Star codeshare.

UA does not codeshare with SQ, and the proposed flight would need zero cooperation from SQ to work well.

SATexan · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:01 pm

Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I agree. With a possibility of ORD / IAH down the road.

It willl be one heck of a long route from IAH to SIN. At about 10K miles I am not even sure if any aircraft is capable of doing this mission viably. Plus, the block time will be more than 21 hours?

777ord · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:11 pm

I doubt they'd start that service. Just because the capability exists and a certain market does. doesn't mean UAL will.. I couldn't imagine being in a UAL plane for that long. especially with that senior of people working it. yikes...

SonomaFlyer · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:31 pm

Quoting SATexan (Reply 30):
Quoting Stitch (Reply 17):
I agree. With a possibility of ORD / IAH down the road.

It willl be one heck of a long route from IAH to SIN. At about 10K miles I am not even sure if any aircraft is capable of doing this mission viably. Plus, the block time will be more than 21 hours?

It's much more likely this route would connect via SFO, especially an IAH passenger. We'd have to know how much demand/traffic is in it for UA when considering if they'd fly to SIN from more than just SFO. I tend to doubt it, especially with existing service from SQ but stranger things have happened.

OA412 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:32 pm

This would be quite interesting if it goes through. SFO-SIN is the logical choice given the hub there. I do wonder if a SEA-SIN on the 77L may be viable. Of course it's a smaller market than LAX and SFO, but SIN is a small market no matter how you slice it. You already have to connect somewhere to get there, so SEA-SIN could be a good option for some passengers.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 33):

Last time DL posted a smaller profit than UA and AA, you invoked DL 1086...

airbazar · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:33 pm

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 21):

UA already commands a higher fare on SFOSIN and SFOHKG than SQ. If the point of sale is majority US based, UA will likely continue to command a premium over SQ if both offer a nonstop.

Hence why SQ served LAX non-stop instead of SFO, and intends to do so again.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 22):

SQ ordered what? 7 frames? 2 routes for 7 frames is a huge waste unless they intend more than 1x daily each.

SIN-GRU

Quoting slider (Reply 23):

Not to mention SQ would be the beneficiary of beyond connects via Star codeshare.

SQ does not codeshare with UA.

Quoting deltal1011man (Reply 25):
3 frames per route is a pretty safe bet for ULH flying.

It's wasteful. They only needed 5 frames for those 2 routes before.

jetblue1965 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:42 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 35):
Last time DL posted a smaller profit than UA and AA, you invoked DL 1086...

You're being revisionist. It was mentioned when the DL folks were busy chest-thumping their world class maintenance program and safety record. It had nothing to do with profits.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 35):
but SIN is a small market no matter how you slice it.

Please tell that to UA and SQ. They both missed your memo. Apparently they're so dumb that UA sends 2x 77E daily to SIN, and SQ sends 2x 77W daily to SFO.

boilerla · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:45 pm

This route, like most ULH for US carriers, would only make sense while oil is at $40/barrel. No US carrier can match the cost structure of somebody like SQ. And I don't understand why they would add a subtype to the fleet to handle a couple of routes when they'll already be adding the 777W as a subtype.

IMHO if UA wants to add ULH routes they should focus on India, but if they're going to start spending $$$ again I'd rather just see a CS100 or E195 e2 order and/or more 787s to start replacing the 772s.

OA412 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:50 pm

Quoting airbazar (Reply 36):
Hence why SQ served LAX non-stop instead of SFO, and intends to do so again.

Well LAX is also just a larger market to most Asia/Pacific cities than is SFO, so given that SQ is relying much more heavily on SIN POS, it's really not surprising they chose LAX.

Birdwatching · Wed Dec 09, 2015 3:56 pm

Quoting NH203 (Reply 3):
We'll let's see what kind of J they put in these birds.

Right, J on United. The one with 8 seats across.

Soren

Stitch · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 40):
Right, J on United. The one with 8 seats across.

UA is rolling out a new Business Class product with the arrival of the A350 fleet and one expects it will follow the BusinessFirst model so at worse it will be 2+2+2, though I could very well see 1+2+1. Such a product would be the one UA would install on such a service should they launch it.

OA412 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:01 pm

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 37):

See this is the problem, you're unwilling to have any sort of respectful conversation about these things, either as this persona or as a380787. You hurl insults instead of trying to make a well-reasoned point. Just because UA and SQ (and DL for that matter) send widebodies to the SIN everyday, does not make it a large market. It is a premium-heavy market, for sure, but it is not a large market from the US, or really from most of the world.

United1 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:04 pm

Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 40):
Right, J on United. The one with 8 seats across.

UA is expected to announce a new J class product with the introduction of the 77Ws late next year...the old IPTE seats are being phased out.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 38):
And I don't understand why they would add a subtype to the fleet to handle a couple of routes when they'll already be adding the 777W as a subtype.

There isn't that much of a difference between the 350-1000 and the 350-900R when it comes to pilot training or air frame maintenance. UA has RR Total Care for the engines so not really a factor.

Same with the 77Ws...when you operate 74 777s already adding 10 more even as a sub type isn't that much of an issue.

United1 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:06 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 42):
It is a premium-heavy market, for sure, but it is not a large market from the US, or really from most of the world.

Very true and it will probably mean the end of the HKG-SIN or NRT-SIN flight on UA as they will simply send those passengers non stop.

jetblue1965 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:08 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 42):
Just because UA and SQ (and DL for that matter) send widebodies to the SIN everyday, does not make it a large market. It is a premium-heavy market, for sure, but it is not a large market from the US, or really from most of the world.

And what's your point? Just because it's smaller than NRT or PEK therefore it's not worth the effort ? All I'm hearing from you is sour grapes because UA is leading in an area that DL is behind.

You really naively think SQ is flying 5x daily into mainland US, including 2 on A380s, for the fun of it ? Just because it's an area that Star excels at and Skyteam stinks at you have to dismiss it ?

Sightseer · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:27 pm

Not surprising. I imagine UA at SFO would have the best chance of any US carrier to make USA-SIN work nonstop.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 42):
either as this persona or as a380787.

That makes so much sense.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 45):
You really naively think SQ is flying 5x daily into mainland US, including 2 on A380s, for the fun of it ?

It's all relative. On one hand, I'd say five daily flights is pretty impressive considering the distance from SIN to the USA. On the other hand, CX has five daily flights to NYC alone (of course, none are A380s).

jetblue1965 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:34 pm

Quoting Sightseer (Reply 46):

It's all relative. On one hand, I'd say five daily flights is pretty impressive considering the distance from SIN to the USA. On the other hand, CX has five daily flights to NYC alone (of course, none are A380s).

That's true of course. The ties with HKG (and the transfer market to mainland China) is far greater.

My point was to counter his assertion that SIN is a small tiny market that's totally not worth the effort, and he implies. It's ironic he expects a respectful conversation when his UA hatred is so blatant. And despite HKG being so much larger of a market than SIN, DL still has the least seats and least ASM from US mainland to HKG. So is it really a SIN/HKG problem, or a DL problem ?

jayunited · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:35 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 4):
Singapore Airlines would start flying the same route and kill them. IF UA were to do such a thing it would have to be from ORD or SFO, you can count on SQ starting a nonstop if United were to undertake such a flight.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

My hope is this both UA and SQ find a way to build a relationship and in time perhaps even apply for a JV. I know that there is history between these two airlines but I've learned to never say never. If both of these airlines can work out their differences who knows what could happen.

I think SQ would flight SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR/JFK, while UA would launch SFO-SIN to start and a few years later if there is demand perhaps launch ORD-SIN or an additional EWR-SIN.

I would love to see UA do this but I think they will need to build a partnership with SQ, UA will need to have a killer J product, and knockout soft product.

jetblue1965 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 4:46 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 48):

I think SQ would flight SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR/JFK, while UA would launch SFO-SIN to start and a few years later if there is demand perhaps launch ORD-SIN or an additional EWR-SIN.

There's a fleet consideration as well. Out of SFO ORD EWR, only SFO-SIN is doable with either 789 or 77W. For the other 2, basically UA must acquire either the 778 or 359ULH, and given that UA already has 350-1000 order in place, the 359ULH is far more likely. The 359ULH can also enhance the performance on routes to India as well as EWR-HKG.

I see this as SQ prematurely giving away their hand by announcing so early about the upcoming ULH plans, and essentially giving UA the time to possibly pre-empt them with SFO-SIN.

The biggest question becomes if both SQ and UA exists on SFO-SIN nonstop, can both survive at all ? And what SQ would do about their other 2 flights to SFO.

stratacruiser · Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:16 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Who in their right mind would fly ULH with UA ?

I do it several times per year. If you're a MP1K you do it because:

(1) You get a 11x multiplier on fare value - on a J ticket that can be orders of magnitude better than for equivalent class on *A partners
(2) If you buy Y, you have a reasonable chance of upgrade to J-cabin - not so on partners
(3) If you're in Y, you access to Y+ seating - those extra few inches of leg room make a big difference on ULH

Aside from that, UA's product isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Biggest disadvantage is the 8-across J seating on sUA aircraft. While I prefer the sCO J seat, I've had very comfortable flights on each. UA's coach product suffers on 744 aircraft due to lack of individual video screens, even with the new streaming option. However, having endured eleven hours in a BR 33" pitch seat with half the leg room taken up by the IVOD box, I'll take a UA 744 Y+.

jetblue1965 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:22 pm

Quoting stratacruiser (Reply 50):

(1) You get a 11x multiplier on fare value - on a J ticket that can be orders of magnitude better than for equivalent class on *A partners

This is a major factor. The best SQ J earns 125% on MP, with no elite bonus, so that's 8446 x 2 x 125% = 21,115 award miles. For UA, a $6000 fare ticket can already earn 66,000, and goes up to 75,000. (The cap is stupid but that's a different discussion)

Quoting stratacruiser (Reply 50):

Aside from that, UA's product isn't as bad as it's made out to be. Biggest disadvantage is the 8-across J seating on sUA aircraft. While I prefer the sCO J seat, I've had very comfortable flights on each. UA's coach product suffers on 744 aircraft due to lack of individual video screens, even with the new streaming option. However, having endured eleven hours in a BR 33" pitch seat with half the leg room taken up by the IVOD box, I'll take a UA 744 Y+.

Luckily, no 8-abreast PMUA J will be flying this route. It's either 2-2-2 if they throw a 789 tomorrow, or a 1-2-1 for the upcoming rumored config for 350/77W.

S75752 · Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:23 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 29):

UA does not codeshare with SQ, and the proposed flight would need zero cooperation from SQ to work well.

The SIN flights for SQ, let's be honest, were partly a pride thing, and it worked for SQ because they could show off a 5 star reputation to attract J flyers who actually cared.

Except it didn't work for SQ. Not a chance of it working for UA. They have better ultra-long routes to devote craft to trying out, especially if they have a codeshare on the other end of it.

YYZAMS · Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:27 pm

Nah, AC will add SIN our of YVR soon.

LAX772LR · Wed Dec 09, 2015 5:28 pm

Quoting zeke (Reply 1):
Who in their right mind would fly ULH with UA ?

What an odd statement. UA is no stranger to 16hr+ kind of flights, it's got three of them already, and they apparently do just fine.

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 12):
Certainly possible with 77L. Maybe UA could convert a few of the upcoming 77Ws to 77Ls and start this really soo

Quoting airbazar (Reply 13):
It's probably a lot more efficient to do it with a 789 even with blocked seats.

That, or they could convert some of their A350s to A359ULR.

Quoting slider (Reply 23):
Not to mention SQ would be the beneficiary of beyond connects via Star codeshare.

There's not much of anything to connect to, beyond SIN.
Much more efficient (geography-wise, and via a JV) for UA to send Asian connections over NRT, and to a lesser extent HKG/ICN, than SIN. To anywhere.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 35):
I do wonder if a SEA-SIN on the 77L may be viable.

Almost certainly not, as SEA-HKG appears to struggle, and that's a stronger gateway + smaller aircraft.
Stands to reason that a weaker/further gateway, with a larger aircraft, would do even worse.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 36):
Hence why SQ served LAX non-stop instead of SFO,

Well, one of many reasons.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 42):
either as this persona or as a380787

You noticed the similarities in posting style/random accusations too, eh?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net