SQ to cease non-stop flights between SIN & EWR/LAX
Oct 25, 2012, 12:25 am
#16
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 18
Yes, it was SIN-AMS-EWR, and SIN-FRA-JFK. Then I think for a while they were alternating between ORD and EWR on different days of the week, but maybe I've gotten confused.
Oct 25, 2012, 6:37 am
#17
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: YVR, KUL
Programs: AC, MH, BA, AF-KL
Posts: 2,903
Oct 25, 2012, 7:19 am
#18
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 144
Anyone know why they're pulling the service? The revenue per flight was almost US$1M (100ish seats at US$8,000ish per seat), so I can't see it not making sense economically. I know someone who flies this 2-4 times a year and he says it's always packed.
Oct 25, 2012, 8:41 am
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: LFT
Programs: AA Plat, lots of AA, AS, DL, UA miles, former top level CO Elite (sigh...)
Posts: 10,795
It also appears that Airbus has agreed to buy back the five A340-500s used for the nonstop flights. In addition, SQ announced plans to buy five additional A380s as well as 20 new A350-900s and also stated it will transfer its order for 20 B787-9s to its new low-cost subsidiary Scoot.
Oct 25, 2012, 8:42 am
#20
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,559
Revenue is only half of the equation. The costs make these type of flights brutally expensive to operate.
Per mile fuel costs are much much higher for ultra long haul flights, but the premium that passengers are willing to pay for such a flight dont necessarily cover the higher operating costs.
EWR-SIN non-stop is only about 3-4 hrs faster than some of the one stop options on the same route (via NRT/HKG/Europe etc). How much of a premium are pax willing to pay to save 3-4 hrs?
Per mile fuel costs are much much higher for ultra long haul flights, but the premium that passengers are willing to pay for such a flight dont necessarily cover the higher operating costs.
EWR-SIN non-stop is only about 3-4 hrs faster than some of the one stop options on the same route (via NRT/HKG/Europe etc). How much of a premium are pax willing to pay to save 3-4 hrs?
Oct 25, 2012, 8:51 am
#21
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Singapore
Programs: QF LTG, SQ EGTP, Bonvoy LTG
Posts: 4,847
And of then of course there were a few of us that only paid about $1k USD and got bonus flights thrown in between RGN and SIN return
Oct 25, 2012, 3:44 pm
#22
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
Revenue is only half of the equation. The costs make these type of flights brutally expensive to operate.
Per mile fuel costs are much much higher for ultra long haul flights, but the premium that passengers are willing to pay for such a flight dont necessarily cover the higher operating costs.
EWR-SIN non-stop is only about 3-4 hrs faster than some of the one stop options on the same route (via NRT/HKG/Europe etc). How much of a premium are pax willing to pay to save 3-4 hrs?
Per mile fuel costs are much much higher for ultra long haul flights, but the premium that passengers are willing to pay for such a flight dont necessarily cover the higher operating costs.
EWR-SIN non-stop is only about 3-4 hrs faster than some of the one stop options on the same route (via NRT/HKG/Europe etc). How much of a premium are pax willing to pay to save 3-4 hrs?
Oct 25, 2012, 3:45 pm
#23
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: SIN, OGG, sometimes BOS
Programs: SQ PPS, UA 1K, BA Silver, paltry DL, expiring points everywhere else
Posts: 152
Would the 77L have worked out better economically? Why did SQ go for the 345 in the first place? AC ditched their 345s for 77L for their HKG routes, and I expected SQ to eventually do the same.
It is very sad indeed to lose these suoer covenient routes: to get off in New York after a single flight from SIN is a dream, and less tiring even if going elsewhere on the East coast. I do the EWR run several times a year and it is always full.
It is very sad indeed to lose these suoer covenient routes: to get off in New York after a single flight from SIN is a dream, and less tiring even if going elsewhere on the East coast. I do the EWR run several times a year and it is always full.
Oct 25, 2012, 3:51 pm
#24
Join Date: Nov 2008
Programs: SPG Gold, Hilton Diamon, IHG Spire
Posts: 374
. If you make it on one of the last flights PLEASE do a trip report w/ photos for us.
Oct 25, 2012, 6:35 pm
#25
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Enough to travel better
Posts: 2,020
Would the 77L have worked out better economically? Why did SQ go for the 345 in the first place? AC ditched their 345s for 77L for their HKG routes, and I expected SQ to eventually do the same.
It is very sad indeed to lose these suoer covenient routes: to get off in New York after a single flight from SIN is a dream, and less tiring even if going elsewhere on the East coast. I do the EWR run several times a year and it is always full.
It is very sad indeed to lose these suoer covenient routes: to get off in New York after a single flight from SIN is a dream, and less tiring even if going elsewhere on the East coast. I do the EWR run several times a year and it is always full.
Oct 25, 2012, 7:29 pm
#26
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,559
There are rumors that SQ got the A345s at minimal cost due to the aircrafts failure to meet performance targets, so SQ was willing to make a go of it until Airbus was able to swap them out for something better. This may have played a role in SQ not pursuing the 77L.
Oct 25, 2012, 9:40 pm
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CHA, MAN;
Programs: Delta DM 1 MM; Hz PC
Posts: 11,169
I never flew the route but would have loved to fly these two routes - just because - the length and distance. Will now have to settle for the Quantas flights.
Last edited by GRALISTAIR; Oct 26, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Oct 25, 2012, 9:44 pm
#30
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: SYD
Programs: QF WP
Posts: 1,799
I don't know how much commonality there is between the A345 and other variants of the A330/340, but apart from that, I don't know of anyone who would even consider taking them on, even at a minimal costs. The normal ranged A340s weren't exactly hot sellers to start with, and doesn't quite measure up economically in most cases against its competitors. Imagine how fast an ultra longhaul version would burn a hole in the bottom line.