SQ to cease non-stop flights between SIN & EWR/LAX
Oct 25, 2012, 11:35 pm
#33
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: China
Posts: 1,552
Back of envelope calculations
75% load factor, 2,700 USD average sector price (4000 USD discounted by 30% or so for kids, connecting flights, redemptions etc)
=400,000 USD per flight. Add 20,000 USD for some high yield cargo. 420k
Fuel burned 55,000 gallons at 3USD/ gallon, so 330,000 USD a round trip
Leaves you 90,000 to pay for salaries, landing fees, overflight fees, 2 nights hotel & food in NYC per crew etc. Let alone asset costs
Ouch.
75% load factor, 2,700 USD average sector price (4000 USD discounted by 30% or so for kids, connecting flights, redemptions etc)
=400,000 USD per flight. Add 20,000 USD for some high yield cargo. 420k
Fuel burned 55,000 gallons at 3USD/ gallon, so 330,000 USD a round trip
Leaves you 90,000 to pay for salaries, landing fees, overflight fees, 2 nights hotel & food in NYC per crew etc. Let alone asset costs
Ouch.
Oct 25, 2012, 11:46 pm
#34
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 5,439
Back of envelope calculations
75% load factor, 2,700 USD average sector price (4000 USD discounted by 30% or so for kids, connecting flights, redemptions etc)
=400,000 USD per flight. Add 20,000 USD for some high yield cargo. 420k
Fuel burned 55,000 gallons at 3USD/ gallon, so 330,000 USD a round trip
Leaves you 90,000 to pay for salaries, landing fees, overflight fees, 2 nights hotel & food in NYC per crew etc. Let alone asset costs
Ouch.
75% load factor, 2,700 USD average sector price (4000 USD discounted by 30% or so for kids, connecting flights, redemptions etc)
=400,000 USD per flight. Add 20,000 USD for some high yield cargo. 420k
Fuel burned 55,000 gallons at 3USD/ gallon, so 330,000 USD a round trip
Leaves you 90,000 to pay for salaries, landing fees, overflight fees, 2 nights hotel & food in NYC per crew etc. Let alone asset costs
Ouch.
Oct 26, 2012, 12:22 am
#35
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 3
I've been a long time lurker on flyertalk, and just joined to post my disappointment in SQ dropping these flights. Over the past two years I've flown SQ 37/38 at least once a month commuting from the US to Singapore. SQ 11/12 just isn't convenient for a US departure if you have to connect at LAX.
It seems like we keep going backwards in commercial aviation. We used to be able to fly supersonic across the Atlantic, and we'll soon have to be reminiscing about flying non-stop across the Pacific to Singapore.
It seems like we keep going backwards in commercial aviation. We used to be able to fly supersonic across the Atlantic, and we'll soon have to be reminiscing about flying non-stop across the Pacific to Singapore.
Oct 26, 2012, 12:30 am
#36
Join Date: Dec 2007
Programs: Enough to travel better
Posts: 2,020
By the time the A340-500s retire/traded-in next year, they would have been in service for 9+ years. This is actually an average service life for SQ aircraft. Some of SQ's aircraft have been in service longer but 7 to 9 years of service per plane is about average for SQ. IMO, SQ really made a go of these routes for all 9+ years of service and had the perfect plane for its time that matched their requirements for these routes.
Oct 26, 2012, 1:11 am
#39
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,813
A bit OT, but with SQ ending this flight, what airlines fly all around the world?
The only one I can think of is NZ. Are ther others?
Although to be really technical, SQ was a few miles short of the accomplishment given the distance between JFK and EWR.
The only one I can think of is NZ. Are ther others?
Although to be really technical, SQ was a few miles short of the accomplishment given the distance between JFK and EWR.
Oct 26, 2012, 5:05 am
#41
Suspended
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Toronto YYZ UA-1K 1MM,QFgold
Programs: Royal Ambassador/ SPG Platinum 75/Marriott gold
Posts: 14,283
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking...-2013-20121026
About time SQ got rid of the fuel pigs. Interesting how long they let this plane lose money. The route will continue to lose money for the next year.
So EK will be the last one flying 345's AC gave away its 2 A345's in receivership to TAM. TG could not get a decent price for the plane at breakup value.
I expect SQ got the planes at a deal and both AC and TG paid dearly for the junk.
PS TAM has grounded its 2 A345's
About time SQ got rid of the fuel pigs. Interesting how long they let this plane lose money. The route will continue to lose money for the next year.
So EK will be the last one flying 345's AC gave away its 2 A345's in receivership to TAM. TG could not get a decent price for the plane at breakup value.
I expect SQ got the planes at a deal and both AC and TG paid dearly for the junk.
PS TAM has grounded its 2 A345's
Last edited by why fly; Oct 26, 2012 at 5:32 am
Oct 26, 2012, 8:14 am
#42
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
Oct 26, 2012, 8:18 am
#43
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
I've been a long time lurker on flyertalk, and just joined to post my disappointment in SQ dropping these flights. Over the past two years I've flown SQ 37/38 at least once a month commuting from the US to Singapore. SQ 11/12 just isn't convenient for a US departure if you have to connect at LAX.
It seems like we keep going backwards in commercial aviation. We used to be able to fly supersonic across the Atlantic, and we'll soon have to be reminiscing about flying non-stop across the Pacific to Singapore.
It seems like we keep going backwards in commercial aviation. We used to be able to fly supersonic across the Atlantic, and we'll soon have to be reminiscing about flying non-stop across the Pacific to Singapore.
And welcome to FlyerTalk!
Oct 26, 2012, 8:24 am
#44
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
Well, any of these SQ A345s could be converted into one heck of a long range business jet for someone with deep pockets for whom the price of Jet A is not a real big issue.......and Airbus would probably let the aircraft go at a very attractive price......@:-)
Oct 26, 2012, 8:45 am
#45
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Programs: AS 100K, UA MM, AA MM, IC Plat Amb, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold, Hyatt Explorist
Posts: 3,146
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?
From that point on, I have avoided any of the super-long-haul flights from Asia to the USA (including TG's old BKK-LAX). I'd much rather connect, get up and walk around, and get some fresh air.
I don't know how many more people feel as I do, but I'd pay a premium to avoid these flights!