Originally Posted by
lokijuh
To be honest I think SQ miscalculated the speed of travel recovery particularly in long haul travel, and also overestimated the competition, leading to basically full flights for weeks if not months on nearly all medium-long haul routes, as they dominate many markets. It is not normal for SQ to so be so full in all classes for such extended periods.
USA- No CX, no BR/CI, very limited JL/NH = SQ full
Europe/East Coast US - EK 1x daily (vs 4x daily pre pandemic), QR 10 x weekly (vs 3x daily) BA - daily 787 (vs 777 + 380) - LH/LX - probably 60% capacity, no QF to LHR, TG- no connections from their daily flight etc
Australia - QF < daily to SYD , MEL, BNE vs 2x daily (SYD/MEL) and daily (BNE), no EK service to MEL. (also reduced services to Australia on other carriers such as CX, TG even EK which compete for AU-Eau traffic putting loads onto SQ)
SE Asia - virtually no competition from TG and GA. Very limited from MH.
So this created a perfect storm for the lounge to be extremely overcrowded during construction delays.
Opening the F lounge and TPR “by the end of the month” should also provide more space as the area dedicated to F right now is opened up (and less pax also).
It's a happy problem for SQ no doubt. Let's hope they actually make a profit in this quarter as they slipped back to a loss in Q4, despite the very strong loads and yields over the Christmas and CNY period. They've raised close to $23 billion, primarily from the very supportive shareholder, plus however many billions in labour and aviation-related support from the SingGov, so they really need to make a return on that.
My concern is they seem to be very focussed on cutting PaxEx costs. They're not going to create long-term profitability eroding the experience and giving passengers fewer reasons to fly SQ.