Originally Posted by Bear96
SQ is so small as to really not be relevant;
You have stated that SQ is a small airline numerous times in this thread, where do you get this idea? Did you know that SQ are the largest 777 operator in the world. UA is second though, I think.
Here are the hard facts: October 2005 results,
UA,
SQ.
UA had about 9 billion RPM (revenue pax miles) in October 2005, SQ had about 4.3 billion RPMs (6.9B kms). Which makes SQ about half the size of UA--hardly a niche player. Note that UA shrunk by 1.1% during this period, while SQ grew 6.2%. The full set of stats are available at the links above, but SQ is roughly half the size of UA and growing fast.
Originally Posted by Bear96
History has clearly shown that there are not sufficient numbers of high-yield passengers willing to consistently pay the fares necessary to sustain an upmarket product on the scale necessary to make it viable. As I asked yesterday, if it were so easy to provide the perks people say they want at the prices they are willing to pay, where is that product? The market is clearly saying such a concept is not sustainable, except in a very few, tiny markets with unique circumstances (i.e., SQ).
If SQ is growing and is profitable, I think it shows the opposite. You can retreat further with your "I'm only talking about domestic USA service" but the fact remains that International is a different bag--not to mention to topic of this "LHR-LAX" thread. Heck, I've taken SQ on 3 hour flights around Asia, where they feel it is viable to offer a true three class service, ala p.s. Full 7 course meals, Dom Perignon and excellent service. This says nothing of what they offer on their long haul flights.
People will pay, just not on UA.