Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:54 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 249):
The last one is wrong. That's stil SQ's long haul F.

You are wrong. The 777-300s (e.g. the non-ER) fly to CGK and have that F product. They also fly to India.
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 2:57 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 250):

That's misusing a long haul plane for short routes. SQ *does not* officially have a separate regional F product.

CX runs their 4 class 77W with F on 1:10 missions to Tpe, but that doesn't make it its regional product either.

Please show me the official SQ webpage showcasing a regional F that's different from long haul F.

[Edited 2016-02-01 18:59:29]
 
User avatar
ua900
Moderator
Posts: 1576
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 3:55 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 248):
Quoting a380787 (Reply 251):

Guys, I have news for you. UA is also "misusing" 3 class 777s on routes like LAX-IAD. I only found out because I'm on these birds occasionally, including Valentine's Day. UA GF is marketed as United First and C is marketed as United Business, much like they did with the old ps service. A GF seats aren't really less comfortable than SQ F seats.
2020: DEN | DFW | EWR | FRA | IAH | LAX | MCO | MUC | ORD | PTY | SFO | TXL
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:10 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 251):
That's misusing a long haul plane for short routes.

How is it being misused? The demand for a premium F ex-CGK has been there for eons.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 251):
Please show me the official SQ webpage showcasing a regional F that's different from long haul F

My point is that even on short haul, SQ's F product cannot even be compared to what UA calls F on short hauls. The point being that United787 was being a smart ass and he lost at his own game.

Also, he must be a terrible architect (well, not sure if landscape architect is a real thing - seems like gardeners are thinking really highly of themselves these days) if he thinks SIN is hard to navigate.
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
Freshside3
Posts: 1591
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 2:11 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:13 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 239):
I personally think they WILL maintain both flights, but the SIN-ICN-SFO service switched over to A359. It's sometimes impressive (or shocking) to see that ICN-SFO alone has 3 different airlines from the same alliance, and none of which are in a JV.

Just curious on the what the "secret criteria" is at Star Alliance......why do they decide to do JVs on some routes, but not on others?
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:14 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 253):

It's still wrong to call it a regional F no matter how you spin it. SQ doesn't call it that. You live in SIN so I understand the urge to grind the ax.
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:36 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 257):
It's false because it's only offered on a very limited selection of routes, and SQ doesn't officially call it such.

Hmmm, well they call it F, and it is offered on short haul. Please point to where I said they call it short haul F?

Quoting a380787 (Reply 257):
totally immature of you.

Yes, because being a pedantic t*** is very mature   
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:46 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 258):

Your own post, reply 248. You said , in ur own words, SQ short haul F.
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:00 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 259):
Your own post, reply 248. You said , in ur own words, SQ short haul F

But I never said they call it short haul F. I just said that is the F product on short haul.
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
bigb
Posts: 1049
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 4:30 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:36 am

OMG, this SQ vs UA argument is very stupid. UA is different kind airline from SQ. It will tailor to a different market from SQ. Both will be fine flying to and from SFO.
 
User avatar
christao17
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 11:22 am

Quoting bigb (Reply 261):
OMG, this SQ vs UA argument is very stupid. UA is different kind airline from SQ. It will tailor to a different market from SQ. Both will be fine flying to and from SFO.

261 replies in and someone finally writes what needs to be said. Thanks! (And I'm not being sarcastic.)
More than a dozen years flying in and around Asia...
 
klwright69
Posts: 2707
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:07 pm

I congratulate UA and I know the route will be a hit out of the box. It won't need "promotion".

Also, I have flown SQ once. I went Bangkok to SIN in coach. A 2 hour flight. The lunch was just amazing. The best on any airline ever. Then I connected to Saudia to fly to RUH from SIN. SV's dinner was a truly unedible disgrace on the other hand.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2936
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 4:54 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 246):
Come off it.

You are comparing UA Long Haul to a SQ regional. On top of that DPS is a low yield leisure destination.

SFO Los cabos = SIN Bali.

Point proven. I was just comparing my limited experience on SQ vs UA. I was responding to the numerous posts with the tone about how everything SQ is far superior to everything UA.

Quoting Coal (Reply 248):
And since United787 is being a smart ass



I wasn't being a smart ass. Yes, I was making a point but I was doing so from my real experience that not everything on SQ blows UA out of the water. And somethings on UA are actually better. BTW, the photo of the seats that I believe you meant to show as SQ J short haul is not the seat I flew on, this was 2008.

Quoting Coal (Reply 253):
My point is that even on short haul, SQ's F product cannot even be compared to what UA calls F on short hauls. The point being that United787 was being a smart ass and he lost at his own game.

Also, he must be a terrible architect (well, not sure if landscape architect is a real thing - seems like gardeners are thinking really highly of themselves these days) if he thinks SIN is hard to navigate.

Really? Wow! Was it necessary to take it personal? I am confused as to why having a disagreement about the service/quality levels of a business opens the door for an attack such as that. Grow up!

For the record, I have a degree in landscape architecture and am licensed with the state. You profile occupation of "Jet Setter" leaves yourself quite open but I won't go there...
 
User avatar
MrHMSH
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2013 7:32 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:22 pm

Quoting tigerotor77w (Reply 225):
This thread is fascinating to me because of the number of people chiming in adamantly about SIN -- as if it were a potential destination. I'm curious -- how many people here have flown economy to SIN?

Only about 60 times. 1 or 2 J trips, but almost exclusively LHR-SIN in SQ Y.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 177):

A very small segment of the flying public agrees with you. Most of them are aviation enthusiasts that enjoy flying and are willing to spend their weekends reading about planes.

Being an aeroplane enthusiast is one thing, knowing that SQ are a quality option is another. On longer flights for a lot of people SQ's service and hard product makes a difference. We're not all Frequent Flyers.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 241):
SQ could've:
1) ordered/leased 77Ls and continued the flights with payload to spare
2) cabin retrofitted a small subfleet of 77Es or 77Ws, and continued at least LAX, until other options became available
3) re-purposed incoming 787s, and continued LAX until other options became available

I don't think the 77E or even 77W offer enough of a difference that it would make the nonstops viable. In any case, they're not getting long haul 787s, only 78Xs.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:31 pm

So am I the only one who is curious about how UA plans to make a profit when the payload-range chart shows serious limitations on this route?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10357
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:35 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 264):
So am I the only one who is curious about how UA plans to make a profit when the payload-range chart shows serious limitations on this route?

By taking advantage of their monopoly position and charging high fares and hoping fuel prices remain low.
 
codc10
Posts: 2784
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:38 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 264):
So am I the only one who is curious about how UA plans to make a profit when the payload-range chart shows serious limitations on this route?

UA is anticipating very strong paid business class demand on the route, and will likely extract a premium for nonstop/one-stop service in Y as well.
 
User avatar
psa1011
Posts: 495
Joined: Fri Jan 14, 2011 9:37 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:42 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 264):

The route should be a winner.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:48 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 266):

UA is anticipating very strong paid business class demand on the route, and will likely extract a premium for nonstop/one-stop service in Y as well.

Unfortunately, this will also mean SFO-SIN will likely be in the Top 5, if not #1, hardest route to find upgrade or award space in the entire system.

This is a very smart move, given that (1) oil is dirt cheap and (2) SFO is one of the strongest corporate markets nationwide now (if not THE single strongest). If the route ever fails, UA can easily revert back to the old SFO-NRT-SIN paradigm.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:53 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 266):

UA is anticipating very strong paid business class demand on the route, and will likely extract a premium for nonstop/one-stop service in Y as well.
Quoting psa1011 (Reply 267):
The route should be a winner.
http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/787.pdf

Look at 3-3 and now tell me how much UA will be able to fill that plane before they bump into that payload-range curve. I estimate that as much as 30% of seats will need to be left empty.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:56 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 269):

Look at 3-3 and now tell me how much UA will be able to fill that plane before they bump into that payload-range curve. I estimate that as much as 30% of seats will need to be left empty.

76 seat blocking ? That's a bit extreme. 25-35 seat blocking westbound seems more realistic to me.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10357
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:02 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 269):
Look at 3-3 and now tell me how much UA will be able to fill that plane before they bump into that payload-range curve. I estimate that as much as 30% of seats will need to be left empty.

No one is saying that every seat will be 100% full. Obviously they will likely be carrying no cargo other than bags and have seat restrictions, but that doesn't mean you can't make money.

UA is well aware of the performance of the 787, they have been operating the -9 variant for almost a year and a half now. They know the payload restrictions. Clearly they believe they can extract enough of a premium on the nonstop (which, barring any changes at SQ or other US airlines, they will have a monopoly on for almost 2 years) to make money.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:24 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 263):

Being an aeroplane enthusiast is one thing, knowing that SQ are a quality option is another. On longer flights for a lot of people SQ's service and hard product makes a difference. We're not all Frequent Flyers.

I stand by my statement that few will make an extra stop because SQ has better service. Many on this forum disagree but this forum is made of aviation enthusiasts that either love SQ or hate UA. Most normal people are not going to give up an extra 3 hours of their time because of the service differential. If that were true, UA wouldn't even be flying to SIN. There are a few that prefer service standards above all else, but it is a small number. It's not like UA is Aeroflot in the communist era or Air China from a couple decades ago. The service differences aren't that big.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 264):
So am I the only one who is curious about how UA plans to make a profit when the payload-range chart shows serious limitations on this route?

I do wonder about the payload over this route. Obviously UA has more accurate information than what the ACAPs say. UA has been flying to MEL with the 787, so they know exactly how the airplane performs and how much payload they can carry on these long range flights. Wind and Chinese airspace will likely be factors. I would suspect that there would be almost no cargo on this flight with higher passenger loads. Fortunately the cargo can fly on the 747 to HKG.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:41 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):

I believe this flight entirely bypasses Chinese airspace in both directions. It runs nearly perfectly along the SIN-NRT-SFO pathway.
 
codc10
Posts: 2784
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2000 7:18 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 6:43 pm

UA also has a great deal of experience in ultra long haul ETOPS routes, having done them for over 15 years with the 777. EWR-HKG, for instance, is at the very end of the 777-200ER's range, but UA routinely flies with cargo and healthy pax loads. I expect them to be able to very precisely determine how much payload they can accommodate on each flight given the conditions, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:02 pm

Quoting codc10 (Reply 274):

UA also has a great deal of experience in ultra long haul ETOPS routes, having done them for over 15 years with the 777. EWR-HKG, for instance, is at the very end of the 777-200ER's range, but UA routinely flies with cargo and healthy pax loads. I expect them to be able to very precisely determine how much payload they can accommodate on each flight given the conditions, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach.

For the record, EWR-HKG is the single longest 77E flight currently in operation (and I also believe EVER in scheduled commercial operation).

If I'm counting correctly, here are the longest flights for each equipment type

388 DFW-SYD
77E EWR-HKG
77L DXB-AKL (announced not just rumored, DOH-AKL is longer)
77W JED-LAX
788 DFW-PVG
789 SFO-SIN (soon)
 
IAHWorldflyer
Posts: 839
Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 7:22 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:07 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):
I stand by my statement that few will make an extra stop because SQ has better service. Many on this forum disagree but this forum is made of aviation enthusiasts that either love SQ or hate UA. Most normal people are not going to give up an extra 3 hours of their time because of the service differential. If that were true, UA wouldn't even be flying to SIN. There are a few that prefer service standards above all else, but it is a small number

I'm going to have to differ with you here. Just this past week I flew IAH-NRT-HKG on NH in Y, and made the return trip on UA. The difference was night and day. I've had some great experiences on UA of late, but when NH does 3 meals and 5 beverage runs between IAH and NRT, and my UA crew doing only 2 meals and 2 beverage runs ( not even a mid-flight water or juice offering), I know I will not repeat that experience twice. I'm sure J was different, but not all of us can fly J every time trans-Pacific. Within Asia, I was surprised at the number of people who told me how they avoid the Asian LCC's and only fly SQ, CX, NH, etc. due to service quality. What I'm saying is that people really will steer away from an airline with poor inflight quality even if it means a few more hours in transit. It's a very long flight, a 2 hour connection somewhere is not the deal breaker it would be on flights of less than 8 hours.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13075
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 263):
I don't think the 77E or even 77W offer enough of a difference that it would make the nonstops viable

Profitable? Probably not.
Viable? Well, they've used 77Es (eastbound nonstop, westbound 1stop) when the A345s were down for mtx, so as a slot holder, it could work.

Again, this is proposed under the "if they really wanted to hold the market that badly, they wouldn't have quit" scenario.... which of course, they didn't.  



Quoting MrHMSH (Reply 263):
In any case, they're not getting long haul 787s

But their subsidiaries are. That's why I said re-purposed.




Quoting DocLightning (Reply 264):
So am I the only one who is curious about how UA plans to make a profit

Or better yet, IF they plan to profit, on a stand-alone basis.

They may have determined that the value of contracts/commitments that they receive for their network at large, overshadows any loss that they'll make on a route such as this.




Quoting a380787 (Reply 275):
For the record, EWR-HKG is the single longest 77E flight currently in operation (and I also believe EVER in scheduled commercial operation).

In pure distance yes, but BOM-EWR often exceeds it in time. So the two sorta vie for that title.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Tue Feb 02, 2016 8:43 pm

Quoting United787 (Reply 262):
You profile occupation of "Jet Setter" leaves yourself quite open but I won't go there...

Touché.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):
few will make an extra stop because SQ has better service.

Then UA should launch 3x daily from the beginning by that logic.
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
infinit
Posts: 1058
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:12 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 12:47 am

Quoting United787 (Reply 262):
BTW, the photo of the seats that I believe you meant to show as SQ J short haul is not the seat I flew on, this was 2008.

2008?! That's 8 years ago and SQ tends to revamp their products every 5 years or so. The pictures Coal showed are quite accurate (without the inclusion if Long Haul F which would include SQ's Suites in addition to the 1-2-1 F showed that they use on short haul flights)

SQ still has 3 regional 772s configured with their old products they use for flights like some CGK runs-those were probably the seats you had in 2008, but these birds will leave the fleet this year
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:37 am

Quoting Polot (Reply 271):

UA is well aware of the performance of the 787, they have been operating the -9 variant for almost a year and a half now. They know the payload restrictions

Yes, and the people at Boeing know how airplanes work, but we still discuss the particulars here.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 270):

76 seat blocking ? That's a bit extreme. 25-35 seat blocking westbound seems more realistic to me.
Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 277):

Or better yet, IF they plan to profit, on a stand-alone basis.

They may have determined that the value of contracts/commitments that they receive for their network at large, overshadows any loss that they'll make on a route such as this.

I wonder this, too. At these ranges, the TOW would be limited to 350,000 lb. the MTOW is 400,000, so that's 50,000 lb that they're leaving on the table. What I do not know is what the TOW would be with full passengers and no cargo. If it's, in the vicinity of 350,000 lb then this route is sensible to run. If it's, say, 370,000 lb, then that's 100 passengers they can't load, which would make the whole route silly. I'd love to know what a max passenger load in a UA 789 configuration gives.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:47 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 280):

Shouldn't u be adding from the empty frame weight up to 350k instead of subtracting from 400 ?
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 24287
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:41 am

UA has been operating the 789 on 15+hr flight time routes like LAX-MEL for over a year now. It has a good idea what it can and cant do with the plane.

From what I hear they believe their forecast block times are conservative. Worst case in winter months a seatblock will be employed. With Pacific load factors about 80-85% blocking even up to 40-45 wont dent this.

And as I posted in Reply 30, SIN is one of the companies strongest BusinessFirst markets so priority will be to keep the front filled with clients to maximize the routes potential.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
DolphinAir747
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:07 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:52 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 248):
And since United787 is being a smart ass, how about short haul F vs. F

I don't see the relevance of this as the companies aren't competing on their regional F products. It's not like SQ is flying their 777s SFO-ORD or something.
 
User avatar
Coal
Posts: 2581
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 11:14 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 3:55 am

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 283):
I don't see the relevance of this

Apparently you also didn't see the sarcasm.
Nxt Flts: SQ SIN-KIX | HD UKB-CTS | NH CTS-NRT | SQ NRT-SIN | AK SIN-DPS-SIN
 
User avatar
DolphinAir747
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:07 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:00 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 284):

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 283):
I don't see the relevance of this

Apparently you also didn't see the sarcasm.

Well yes of course it's funny to see how much better SQ is and the joke that American domestic "F" is but as much as I love SQ shiny cabins do not mean shiny profits
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:10 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 281):

Shouldn't u be adding from the empty frame weight up to 350k instead of subtracting from 400 ?

2+x=5
5-2=x

It's algebra.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
a380787
Posts: 4573
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:38 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 4:13 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 286):

It doesn't work that way with loads. A max load would include certain amount of cargo, but what you attempted to do was assume all 50k lost would be pax and their bags.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21781
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 5:30 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 287):

It doesn't work that way with loads. A max load would include certain amount of cargo, but what you attempted to do was assume all 50k lost would be pax and their bags.

Right. I'm aware of that. I'm giving the range.

We need to know what a UA 789 with full pax and bags but no cargo weighs.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
tjh8402
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 4:20 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 6:19 am

Quoting UALWN (Reply 208):
Good. But it will be wildly inconsistent with the current 8-abreast J cabin in UA's current 777 fleet.
Quoting Polot (Reply 232):
I think he mean denser as a whole. In other words still 1-2-1 (he did say earlier that new product was 4 abreast) but each seat takes up less space (via slightly less personal space and better/more dense seat packaging/staggering) than the current GF product, so more seats can be squeezed in the same space than if they had just used the GF seat as their C seat.
Quoting codc10 (Reply 242):
The GF product in a 1-2-1 configuration right now occupies more cabin square footage than, for example, a 1-2-1 Cirrus Solar or B/E Aerospace Super Diamond seat. There will be a bit less personal space and less storage to account for the fact that it will be fundamentally a business class product, but it will improve significantly over the current-generation J seats.

F is pretty rare on the 787 so hard to know exactly how the difference would look. However, several airlines do manage to make 1-2-1 work in both F and J on the same plane, most commonly a 777 (AA, NH, SQ, EY), with EY actually doing it on a 787. I guess the F suite is overall more spacious and/or the aisles are.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8349
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:18 pm

CAPA article points to seats on the westbound being restricted from sale till the last moment - that points to the 789 being right on the edge of its utilisation.

Just switch the morning return to SFO to late afternoon and this will be a goldmine.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 1:29 pm

Quoting Coal (Reply 278):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):
few will make an extra stop because SQ has better service.

Then UA should launch 3x daily from the beginning by that logic.
UA will have a competitive advantage over SQ. They likely will be able to command higher fares. They will need them especially if the 787 is weight restricted since the cost of the operation will be high.

There are plenty of reasons why SQ can still fill its airplanes. It has a strong network out of SIN for connections. They can compete on fares and outprice UA. There are people loyal to its frequent flyer program and perks it offers. I am not saying SQ will fail, but I am refuting those who think that SQ will be more popular exclusively based on service. When both SQ and UA were competing and offering the same connecting options via HKG, NRT or SIN, then yes I can see a large percent of flyers preferring SQ. Now that UA is going nonstop, I think that second SQ flight via ICN is going to suffer.

I can't think of a market in the world where nonstop flights don't command a premium over one stop flights. The exceptions might be in the Middle East where people will avoid airlines like Iran Air, Pakistan, Air India, Biman Bangladesh, etc and fly more reliable airlines like Emirates. I am sure there are some on A.net that think United is worse than Air India, but everyone can have their opinion.

[Edited 2016-02-03 05:32:43]
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
AABB777
Posts: 573
Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2007 12:05 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Wed Feb 03, 2016 2:04 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 291):
I can't think of a market in the world where nonstop flights don't command a premium over one stop flights.

  

Frequent premium travelers will pay a premium for the non-stop. For those who travel very frequently saving a few hours of travel time by taking a non-stop vs one stop is always preferable.
 
United Airline
Posts: 8971
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 11:44 am

When will SQ restart SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR? Perhaps they should try SIN-JFK?
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8349
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:02 pm

Quoting AABB777 (Reply 292):
Frequent premium travelers will pay a premium for the non-stop

They won't pay a premium for a long haul leaving at that time in the morning from Singapore. They would prefer to leave the night before and get home earlier.

Day flights are known to be less high yielding than evening departures. Look at HKG - Europe for examples. With the exception of KL, all European carriers leave in the evening.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
AngMoh
Posts: 1020
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:03 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 12:12 pm

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 294):
They won't pay a premium for a long haul leaving at that time in the morning from Singapore. They would prefer to leave the night before and get home earlier.

The problem is not the departure time. It is the arrival time. SIN-US is very long and even if you fly J your are not ready to go to work on the same day of arrival. I have done that once and it is the only time ever I fell asleep in a meeting.

I used to take the SIN-ICN-SFO flight with a connection after that as then you can arrive at your destination in (late) afternoon or evening, go straight to bed and be fresh the next morning.

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 291):
There are plenty of reasons why SQ can still fill its airplanes. It has a strong network out of SIN for connections. They can compete on fares and outprice UA. There are people loyal to its frequent flyer program and perks it offers. I am not saying SQ will fail, but I am refuting those who think that SQ will be more popular exclusively based on service. When both SQ and UA were competing and offering the same connecting options via HKG, NRT or SIN, then yes I can see a large percent of flyers preferring SQ. Now that UA is going nonstop, I think that second SQ flight via ICN is going to suffer.

SQ is not going to suffer. UA is replacing one flight (which was doing well) with another flight (which also will do well). How are all those SQ passengers going to fit on the UA flight?
727 732 733 734 735 73G 738 739/ER 742 743 744/M 752 753 762 772 77E 773 77W 788 A300 A310 A319 A320 A321 A332 A333 A343 A345 A346 A359 A35K A388 DC-9 DC-10 MD11 MD81 MD82 MD87 F70 ERJ145 E170 E175 E190 E195 ATR72 Q400 CRJ200 CRJ700 CRJ900 BAE146 RJ85
 
roseflyer
Posts: 9602
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:34 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:16 pm

Quoting AngMoh (Reply 295):

SQ is not going to suffer. UA is replacing one flight (which was doing well) with another flight (which also will do well). How are all those SQ passengers going to fit on the UA flight?

All those passengers will not end up on UA, but some of the high yielding business class passengers probably will. SQ has their newest business class product flying to SFO and the market is important, but with a new nonstop competing flight, SQ yields will suffer a bit. That is why I question SIN-ICN-SFO and wonder if that route may suffer. SQ can drop SIN-ICN-SFO and upgauge SIN-HKG-SFO back to the A380 if UA does cut into their margins.
If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
 
User avatar
DolphinAir747
Posts: 1901
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:07 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 1:22 pm

Quoting roseflyer (Reply 296):
SQ can drop SIN-ICN-SFO and upgauge SIN-HKG-SFO back to the A380 if UA does cut into their margins.

YES PLEASE! I want Suites to SFO!   
 
mdavies06
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 10:28 pm

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:18 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 273):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):
Quoting roseflyer (Reply 272):

I believe this flight entirely bypasses Chinese airspace in both directions. It runs nearly perfectly along the SIN-NRT-SFO pathway.

Actually from looking at flightaware for flights between SFO and NRT/TPE/HKG, UA may consider not using SFO-NRT-TPE-SIN on the westbound, as looking at a few SFO-TPE and TPE-SIN flights, the flight time for these two sectors together come close to 18 hours in total (as there are two takeoffs and landings in two sectors, translating to SFO-SIN nonstop probably comes to around 17.5 hrs). For a path such as SFO-Alaska-Russia-PEK-HKG-SIN, it will be around 17 hours in total (need to subtract ~30 mins again for SFO-SIN). The latter may become the actual westbound path for SFO-SIN. Though I agree eastbound will be SIN-NRT-SFO no doubt.

Quoting BestWestern (Reply 294):
Day flights are known to be less high yielding than evening departures. Look at HKG - Europe for examples. With the exception of KL, all European carriers leave in the evening.

Yes you can put it that way, but of course this will imply less connections on the SFO end for UA.

[Edited 2016-02-04 06:28:46]

[Edited 2016-02-04 06:29:35]

[Edited 2016-02-04 06:29:58]
 
hohd
Posts: 868
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 1:03 am

United Announces SFO-SIN - Part 1

Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 pm

To compete in this route, UA's fare cannot be greater than SQ, the non stop advantage is not that big (just about 3 hours). Only UA diehards will fly this route for a higher price, most other casual passengers will choose the cheapest fare option.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos