United - Singapore Airlines Plan Broad Code-shares

LAXintl · Mon May 09, 2016 7:57 pm

The ice must be melting --- Currently the Star partners have zero code-shares.

United and Singapore Airlines have jointly filed with the DOT for authority to enter into broad code sharing arrangements.

Carriers says they seek to establish such code sharing on or about July 1st based on the following terms:

o Between any point in the US and Singapore on nonstop basis, or intermediate routing via open-skies points,
o Beyond Singapore to any open-skies points,
o Beyond the United States to any open-skies points.

OST-2004-19148

=

Good news especially for United. It could nicely help the upcoming SFO-SIN nonstop by opening up potential beyond markets where it can place its UA code on.

Currently SQ code-shares with B6 and VX in the US market.

[Edited 2016-05-09 13:08:33]

yellowtail · Mon May 09, 2016 8:06 pm

Lord knows SQ could use it on IAH-DME-SIN right now.

LAXintl · Mon May 09, 2016 8:11 pm

Looks like SQ will initially codeshare on UA to support its IAH service, with listed connections to ATL, AUS, FLL, MCO, MIA, MSY and TPA.

thomasphoto60 · Mon May 09, 2016 8:11 pm

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 1):
Lord knows SQ could use it on IAH-DME-SIN right now.

I was thinking the same thing, hate to lose this flight.

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 8:20 pm

Very much unexpected news. Who knew they would actually kiss and make up ? A broad and expanded codeshare can also ensure the longer-term survival of upcoming SIN-NYC/LAX services (assuming SQ opts for EWR again).

The purchase of VX by AS may have also played a role in SQ deciding to hedge their bets in case AS cuts them off (which is somewhat plausible given the close relationship AS has with CX)

Of course, UA has extended an olive branch by exiting the TYO-SIN market. If their relationship continues to defrost and improve, I'd expect UA to exit HKG-SIN within 2-3 years time.

alfa164 · Mon May 09, 2016 8:24 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Looks like SQ will initially codeshare on UA to support its IAH service, with listed connections to ATL, AUS, FLL, MCO, MIA, MSY and TPA.

It is interesting that - although choosing to codeshare to only 7 US cities - three of those cities are hubs for other airlines.

AmricanShamrok · Mon May 09, 2016 8:30 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The ice must be melting --- Currently the Star partners have zero code-shares.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 4):
Very much unexpected news. Who knew they would actually kiss and make up ?

Why has there been a frosty relationship between UA and SQ? I tried searching but couldn't find anything on the topic.

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 8:33 pm

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 5):

It is interesting that - although choosing to codeshare to only 7 US cities - three of those cities are hubs for other airlines.

I count 4 - ATL FLL MCO MIA. Which one are you excluding ?

blueflyer · Mon May 09, 2016 8:35 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The ice must be melting --- Currently the Star partners have zero code-shares.

Hell freezing over is more like it. I don't know the background, but their relationship was so tense that in years of flying Singapore Airlines to/from the US, I can't remember them selling me even a connecting flight on United! It's as though the interline agreement didn't even exist as far as Singapore Airlines is concerned. Whenever I booked direct, my connections to date have been anybody-but-United.

alfa164 · Mon May 09, 2016 8:45 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 7):
I count 4 - ATL FLL MCO MIA. Which one are you excluding ?

I wasn't counting MCO.

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 8:45 pm

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 9):

Quoting a380787 (Reply 7):
I count 4 - ATL FLL MCO MIA. Which one are you excluding ?

I wasn't counting MCO.

Any reason why? It's one of the 4 largest hubs of B6.

VC10er · Mon May 09, 2016 9:05 pm

The more United can rub up against Singapore, the better, perhaps some of Singapore's sense of class can rub off!!!

avek00 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:12 pm

Makes sense, esp. from SQ's perspective. SQ almost certainly has very favorable interline prorate terms with VX that won't survive the VX-AS merger, and comprehensive alternatives for domestic feed are few. SQ may also benefit from UA's higher yields in the USA-SIN market.

alfa164 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:18 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 10):
Any reason why? It's one of the 4 largest hubs of B6.

Two reasons:

1) ATL, MIA, and MSP are hubs for airlines who either fly to SIN (DL) or codeshare (AA, through JL or CX) to SIN. B6 is an airline that offers no competition to SQ.

2) B6 uses MCO mostly for connections to Latin America. It is almost less than a hub but something more than a "scissor" connection for those flights. Indeed, if you listen to Jetblue, they really don't rely on a traditional "hub" model - although they seem to be moving more that direction.

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:22 pm

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 13):

Two reasons:

1) ATL, MIA, and MSP are hubs for airlines who either fly to SIN (DL) or codeshare (AA, through JL or CX) to SIN. B6 is an airline that offers no competition to SQ.

If that's your line of logic, then why FLL ?

alfa164 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:27 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 14):
If that's your line of logic, then why FLL ?

I didn't include FLL; it falls under the same definition as MCO.

I counted ATL, MIA, and MSP - all major hubs for legacy, internationally-flying airlines.

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:28 pm

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 5):

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Looks like SQ will initially codeshare on UA to support its IAH service, with listed connections to ATL, AUS, FLL, MCO, MIA, MSY and TPA.

It is interesting that - although choosing to codeshare to only 7 US cities - three of those cities are hubs for other airlines.

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 15):

I counted ATL, MIA, and MSP - all major hubs for legacy, internationally-flying airlines.

I looked back at reply 5 and I can't find "MSP".

alfa164 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:32 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 16):
I looked back at reply 5 and I can't find "MSP".

Huh??? Reply 5 didn't mention any specific airports... only "hubs for other airlines". I misread MSP for MSY... so SQ is looking for codeshare to only two hubs - ATL and MIA.

Less important than it looked at first glance.

[Edited 2016-05-09 14:38:22]

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:36 pm

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 17):
Huh??? Reply 5 didn't mention any specific airports... only "hubs for other airlines".

Please look again :

Quoting ALFA164 (Reply 5):

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Looks like SQ will initially codeshare on UA to support its IAH service, with listed connections to ATL, AUS, FLL, MCO, MIA, MSY and TPA.

It is interesting that - although choosing to codeshare to only 7 US cities - three of those cities are hubs for other airlines.

Reply 5 is you quoting the 7 airports listed by LAXINTL and claiming 3 are hubs of other airlines. Nowhere in the list is MSP, unless you're seeing something I'm missing.

thomasphoto60 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:38 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 8):

Hell freezing over is more like it. I don't know the background, but their relationship was so tense that in years of flying Singapore Airlines to/from the US, I can't remember them selling me even a connecting flight on United! It's as though the interline agreement didn't even exist as far as Singapore Airlines is concerned. Whenever I booked direct, my connections to date have been anybody-but-United.

Which leaves me to wonder how they get along with their other *A partners at IAH namely, CA, AC, BR, LH, NH, NZ, ect..

[Edited 2016-05-09 14:40:09]

kiwiandrew · Mon May 09, 2016 9:40 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 12):
Makes sense, esp. from SQ's perspective. SQ almost certainly has very favorable interline prorate terms with VX that won't survive the VX-AS merger, and comprehensive alternatives for domestic feed are few.

I think we have a winner here. With the disappearance of VX into AS I think SQ may have had to find an alternative ( also, getting founder member UA on side may be helpful when asking Star for permission to play with Air France) .

LAX772LR · Mon May 09, 2016 9:47 pm

Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 6):
Why has there been a frosty relationship between UA and SQ? I tried searching but couldn't find anything on the topic.

To be honest, I think that's more of an AvGeek myth, than a reality.

It's probably just simple geography and market dynamics:
Most notably that UA doesn't really need SQ'snor really, anyone's) help to get people from anywhere in the USA to SIN, but the opposite is not true.

As for cnnx beyond SIN:
From UA's perspective, why bother? Where is SQ gonna cnnx an inbound N.American pax to, via SIN, that UA couldn't equally or more efficiently do elsewhere?

BKK? Nope.
KUL? Nope.
India, Oz, Vietnam, Indonesia? Nope.

a380787 · Mon May 09, 2016 9:53 pm

Not that SUB DPS KUL are really that big a market from the US, but if one is traveling in the premium cabin and wants to maximize time in the flat bed product, a SIN transit is preferred over NRT / TPE.

SIN is also consistently ranked one of the top global airports (alongside with HKG+ICN), so that may also be factor if all else being equal.

[Edited 2016-05-09 14:56:45]

SIA747Megatop · Mon May 09, 2016 10:00 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 8):
I don't know the background, but their relationship was so tense that in years of flying Singapore Airlines to/from the US, I can't remember them selling me even a connecting flight on United!

Back before the VX days if I had to book a flight from SIN to ORD they always booked me on UA, multiple times a year. Nowadays, I opt for VX. Despite being *G, it's a no-brainer.

Quoting thomasphoto60 (Reply 19):
Which leaves me to wonder how they get along with their other *A partners at IAH namely, CA, AC, BR, LH, NH, NZ, ect..

SIA has expanded codeshare agreements with NH (beyond just the US) and BR, the latter specifically for the US feed.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 21):
To be honest, I think that's more of an AvGeek myth, than a reality.

Yup - especially on Flyertalk.
There's been a lot of animosity towards SQ based on how inventory for partner awards on their long haul business, first and suites product as I'm sure you're well aware. Ticketing carriers have to pay the operating carrier they put their pax on. The demand for SQ products was strong but airlines didn't want to pay to put their passengers on partner airlines. Especially on routes they fly themselves. Last year United removed SQ from its online booking platform for redemption tickets. It goes both ways. SQ passengers can't redeem partner awards online at all.

IIRC SQ would rather sell a ticket for its FFP members on its own metal to the US and have them connect at SFO, LAX, IAH, JFK to partner carriers. I experienced this several times when trying to book ORD 1-stop after they ceased the non-stop flights to LAX and EWR. The first options and most available options were SQ all the way to the US before offering LH, UA etc.

[Edited 2016-05-09 15:04:09]

infinit · Tue May 10, 2016 12:50 am

This moment will probably go down in the Airliners.net annals.. when SQ and UA make up

For SQ it's definitely related to VX being bought over and to support their IAH route. Whereas UA would probably hain more access to SQ's Asian network

Viscount724 · Tue May 10, 2016 1:12 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 21):
Quoting AmricanShamrok (Reply 6):
Why has there been a frosty relationship between UA and SQ? I tried searching but couldn't find anything on the topic.

To be honest, I think that's more of an AvGeek myth, than a reality.

It's probably just simple geography and market dynamics:
Most notably that UA doesn't really need SQ'snor really, anyone's) help to get people from anywhere in the USA to SIN, but the opposite is not true.

No it's not a myth. When I worked for IATA I was once told at a meeting by a UA executive directly involved with their Star Aliance activities that the UA/SQ relationship got off to a bad start when SQ launched 5th freedom service SIN-AMS-ORD. UA didn't think it was appropriate for a Star member to operate 5th freedom longhaul service from AMS to UA's major hub rather than feeding UA's AMS-ORD flight. He told me that after that SQ service started (which didn't last very long) UA and SQ were barely on speaking terms.

changyou · Tue May 10, 2016 1:37 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):

Do you have any idea what went wrong with TG and UA then?
I would have thought UA and TG will have better cooperation after SQ being signed off
In the end TG and UA ended their code shares completely
Any idea why?

rbavfan · Tue May 10, 2016 1:40 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 4):
Who knew they would actually kiss and make up ?

Jeff Smisek is no longer CEO! I'll bet that has something to do with it. Oscar Munoz seems to work with people. Smisek never worked with them, he worked ABOVE them & for his benefit only.

changyou · Tue May 10, 2016 2:18 am

SQ's CEO had a different vision than his predecessors. He prefers corporation.
Keep the enemies closer

aerorobnz · Tue May 10, 2016 3:50 am

Quoting infinit (Reply 24):
when SQ and UA make up

Yep it even outlasted "when will DL retire their DC9s?" . SQ have recently patched up things with NZ too. They are obviously thawing out under the intense competition.

Coal · Tue May 10, 2016 4:47 am

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The ice must be melting

My first thought is that hell is freezing over (or pigs are flying)!

Quoting a380787 (Reply 4):
longer-term survival of upcoming SIN-NYC/LAX services (assuming SQ opts for EWR again)

This is interesting and I suspect that SQ will go back to the old model of having the one-stop service via FRA at JFK and the non-stop at EWR to connect to UA flights. A few people here, and in particular one member, think that any codeshare agreement would only benefit SQ and not UA at all, but I think that with SQ re-launching flights to NYC (assuming it's EWR), UA can now offer two non-stops from major hubs (the other being their own SFO-SIN). As much as people say that the SFO nonstop can satisfy demand for a one-stop from any city in the US, I think EWR would be a great compliment.

As much as I dislike UA, this will provide some great options when flying to the US that unfortunately VX and B6, as amazing as they are, did not provide.

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 8):
Hell freezing over is more like it.

Coal · Tue May 10, 2016 4:50 am

I wonder if this will eventually mean the end of UA 895 / 896 from HKG to SIN. It'd be a shame as those flights are so cheap, usually cheaper than LCCs on the route.

questions · Tue May 10, 2016 4:54 am

How/why did DL lose their relationship with SQ? I believe it was in the mid 1980s to early 1990s.

LAX772LR · Tue May 10, 2016 5:32 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 30):
SQ re-launching flights to NYC (assuming it's EWR), UA can now offer two non-stops from major hubs (the other being their own SFO-SIN)

Three. You're forgetting SQ's SIN-LAX, also a UA hub.

Coal · Tue May 10, 2016 5:43 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 33):
You're forgetting SQ's SIN-LAX, also a UA hub.

I know about SIN-LAX but is LAX as much of a hub for UA as SFO and EWR? LAX is everyone's hub.

LAX772LR · Tue May 10, 2016 6:40 am

Quoting Coal (Reply 34):
but is LAX as much of a hub for UA as SFO and EWR?

No, nor would it need to be.

In addition to its international offerings, UA's LAX hub still serves every UA hub, every major US business market, and every major US leisure market.... more than adequate to transfer incoming SQ pax to anywhere in the country that they'd realistically want to go.

behramjee · Tue May 10, 2016 9:51 am

I hope that this leads to a future SQ service to IAD and ORD via a stopover in EU or DXB.

In 2015, SIN-ORD demand stood at 33,000 pax where as SIN-IAD was 24,000 pax.

sparkingwave · Tue May 10, 2016 10:12 am

Is it possible that after SQ has been losing out to the ME3 in terms of flying pax between Europe-Oceania, it is trying to compensate by courting UA in order to add market share and revenue?

Nimish · Tue May 10, 2016 11:03 am

Glad SQ is coming off it's high horse (my view), and this might be due to the pressure from the ME3 - that SQ now has to look at partners as peers.

trent1000 · Tue May 10, 2016 11:14 am

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The ice must be melting

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 8):
Hell freezing over is more like it

This could be another example of global warming - well, a global (alliance) warming.
Causes debatable, the extent of its existence yet unknown, occurring quickly enough to notice without much panic, measurable (but not yet in UA mileage)...

Is bed-hopping SQ's new strategy? Weren't they getting into bed with KL yesterday?

alfa164 · Tue May 10, 2016 2:42 pm

Quoting trent1000 (Reply 39):
Is bed-hopping SQ's new strategy? Weren't they getting into bed with KL yesterday?

I think that was AF...it will be interesting to see what comes of all this.

codc10 · Tue May 10, 2016 3:03 pm

Quoting Coal (Reply 31):
I wonder if this will eventually mean the end of UA 895 / 896 from HKG to SIN.

Probably not right away. UA HKG-SIN is still important for ORD/EWR-SIN as the SFO connection adds too much time over a stopover in Asia. It's a cheaper sector to operate than NRT-SIN, and much of the traffic on that route was comprised of LAX/SFO connections, which now either have nonstop or one stop via SFO options.

huaiwei · Tue May 10, 2016 3:33 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
the UA/SQ relationship got off to a bad start when SQ launched 5th freedom service SIN-AMS-ORD. UA didn't think it was appropriate for a Star member to operate 5th freedom longhaul service from AMS to UA's major hub rather than feeding UA's AMS-ORD flight.

In the meantime, UA sees it fit to continue its HKG-SIN and TOK-SIN for years, when both can be fed into SQ's numerous flights.

Both airlines know that due to simple geography and technological limitations, connecting the two countries will invariably require a stopover until recently, and both know the advantage that 5th freedom brings to ensure the viability of these routes, which were once characterised as "long-thin" routes.

So why is one airline whining over these 5th freedom flights, when they themselves are a benefactor of it on the same market?

I am, of course, assuming the relationship truly soured due to such a petty issue.

RTW00 · Tue May 10, 2016 4:27 pm

Can this code share with SQ help the upcoming SFO-SIN service to provide a one stop connection to BLR?
Currently, AI is taking a good loads with one stop at DEL and in the process of expanding.

LAXintl · Tue May 10, 2016 4:51 pm

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
UA executive directly involved with their Star Aliance activities that the UA/SQ relationship got off to a bad start when SQ launched 5th freedom service SIN-AMS-ORD. UA didn't think it was appropriate for a Star member to operate 5th freedom longhaul service from AMS to UA's major hub rather than feeding UA's AMS-ORD flight. He told me that after that SQ service started (which didn't last very long) UA and SQ were barely on speaking terms.

Interesting story, but UA-SQ have not codeshared since day one of SQ joining Star in 2000, which predates the AMS-ORD flight.

As part of its 2000 alliance entry the carriers were authorized to code-share , and as late as 2008 held codesshare authority on following routes.

New York/Newark-Frankfurt, Germany
Frankfurt-Singapore
Los Angeles-Singapore
Singapore-Melbourne, Australia
Singapore-Sydney, Australia
Singapore-Dhaka, Bangladesh
Singapore-Colombo, Sri Lanka
Singapore-Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Singapore-Bangkok, Thailand
Singapore-Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam
Singapore-Auckland, New Zealand
Singapore-Jakarta, Indonesia

Also interestingly, even as the passenger side of the house did not work together, the cargo divisions have codeshared since 2004.

Quoting changyou (Reply 26):
Do you have any idea what went wrong with TG and UA then?

The UA-TG codeshares were dropped in 2011 as basically they cost too much, diluted yields, and demand was too one-way.

Quoting RTW00 (Reply 43):
Can this code share with SQ help the upcoming SFO-SIN service to provide a one stop connection to BLR?
Currently, AI is taking a good loads with one stop at DEL and in the process of expanding.

Sure possibly depending on what, if any beyond SIN markets UA opts to codeshare with SQ on.

Though remember, LH has its famous Banglore Express flight which UA happily helps support today as part of its A++ JV, so it needs to be careful not to simply steal revenue from one pocket to another.

redzeppelin · Tue May 10, 2016 6:03 pm

Quoting Yellowtail (Reply 1):
Lord knows SQ could use it on IAH-DME-SIN right now.

How would that work, given there is no open-skies agreement with Russia? It seems to violate the proposed terms:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
o Between any point in the US and Singapore on nonstop basis, or intermediate routing via open-skies points,

I can see different ways to interpret this, but I can't find a news source with any more information yet.

Viscount724 · Wed May 11, 2016 2:01 am

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 42):

Quoting huaiwei (Reply 42):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 25):
the UA/SQ relationship got off to a bad start when SQ launched 5th freedom service SIN-AMS-ORD. UA didn't think it was appropriate for a Star member to operate 5th freedom longhaul service from AMS to UA's major hub rather than feeding UA's AMS-ORD flight.

In the meantime, UA sees it fit to continue its HKG-SIN and TOK-SIN for years, when both can be fed into SQ's numerous flights.

By TOK assume you mean Tokyo.

HKG-SIN wouldn't work connecting with SQ. SQ has no SIN-HKG early enough to connect with UA's bank of flights from HKG to their US hubs.

drerx7 · Wed May 11, 2016 2:05 am

Quoting redzeppelin (Reply 45):
How would that work, given there is no open-skies agreement with Russia? It seems to violate the proposed terms:

Transaero was codesharing on it, and on the US side, they codeshared with US.

flyenthu · Wed May 11, 2016 9:53 pm

Quoting thomasphoto60 (Reply 3):
I was thinking the same thing, hate to lose this flight.

I have taken this flight a couple of times-both during peak winter holiday season-Christmas through NYs. Although the flights from IAH-DME were sparsely occupied (one time there was no pax in J when we flew on Christmas eve), it more than fills up in the DME-SIN sector. Really packed Y and J, and the plane looks real used up by the time we landed in SIN. I am wondering when you take the whole route (IAH-SIN), if the load in the DME-SIN leg makes up for the light loads in the IAH-DME leg. I do not know how this flight does year round.

HALtheAI · Wed May 11, 2016 10:08 pm

With regard to why UA and SQ don't get along, CAPA says that it was because United opposed SQ joining Star Alliance.

Quote:
http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...s-nonstops-would-make-sense-280561
United and Thai Airways are among the five founding members of Star, dating back to 1997. When SIA applied to join Star a couple of years after the alliance was initially founded, United objected to SIA joining and the two airlines have since had a relatively sour relationship.

[Edited 2016-05-11 15:10:59]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net