fakecd

singapore is sleepless city and 1035pm there is probably busier than 330pm in PER

gobblercat

Totally agree.

We've flown SQ224 multiple times. After getting up at an ungodly hour, by the time we land in Singapore I'm ready for bed again.

A mid-morning departure would be perfect for us.

lokijuh

There is always the competition, QF71 which departs PER at 1125 arriving at 1645.

gobblercat

You're right, and we have already booked QF71 for our next trip to Singapore!

Shame really, as SIA service is a million times better than Qantas.

SilverChris

I wonder if there's anyone in the QF forum complaining about the return QF72's timing (dep 1915 arr 0025)

danielonn

A 11 AM flight is even better.

sbs2716g

this will mean a 440am departure from Singapore. So not good also.

dkc192

They could just have a plane RON in PER...

sbs2716g

Which mean additional cost.

did The crews performing SIN-PER stay over at Perth or they are doing turnaround flight ?

RatherGhastly

Yes, from the point of view of efficiency, these timings are fine, and I do understand the rationale for the existing timings. However, from the point of view of comfort (i.e., sleep), they’re not. I’m not saying that the existing flights don’t serve a purpose, but at least one option that doesn’t require a very early start, a very late arrival or a red-eye would be nice.

I think there are objective reasons why these flight timings may be considered terrible, apart from any personal idiosyncrasies of mine. There is a reason why the LCC flights in Europe from the likes of RyanAir and EasyJet tend to leave very early in the morning or land very late at night, because no-one (I am exaggerating for hyperbole here, lest someone feels like challenging my ‘no-one’) likes to fly at these times, and therefore airport slots are cheap. As for red-eyes, I frequently fly between PER and SYD, and the red-eyes eastbound are generally the cheapest, again because most people prefer a day-time flight. That said, I am booked on the red-eye SQ216 later this year, for want of a better option.

Hmm... I don’t know if I agree with this. I think a 22:35 arrival is too late, because, by the time you get through immigration, collect your luggage and get to the hotel, it may well be approaching midnight. The last time I flew into SIN was on SQ222 arriving at 21:20, and I made my way to my hotel above the Tanglin Mall, where a friend picked me up around 22:30 to get a drink and have a chat, and we struggled to find much open beyond 23:00, although, granted, it was a Monday night.

bpk6h

I certainly understand your desire for a conveniently timed daytime flight - after all my favorite flight in SQ's network is SQ318. However, I think this is a case of simple airline economics. SQ would prefer not to have one its aircraft sit idle in Perth for longer than it needs to which is what would be required to have a mid morning PER departure (given current schedules). The goal is to avoid having an unproductive asset. If left idle for several hours, SQ would presumably be required to vacate the gate, have the plane towed to a parking area and towed back to the gate while incurring add'l PER parking/service fees. With the quick turnaround and early PER departure of SQ224, SQ is able to utilize that aircraft for some of the 1400~ SIN departures to North Asia. These aircraft then return to SIN as red-eyes...keeping the planes in the air (and at capacity!) is exactly what SQ wants.

This also explains easyJet and Ryanair - they are maximizing aircraft utilization by starting as early as possible. Their planes fly multiple rotations throughout the day and they pay appropriate slot fees for all hours of the day (not just early mornings). The cheaper price points of the earliest departures are to attract customers to those flights that would otherwise be avoided. Where they save is by often flying to secondary airports (and offering next to no service ).

WISEMEN

Now I'm showing my age here, but for many years SQ 224 departed PER at 0850 and in 2011 started getting progressively earlier to settle on the current 0640. This timing was originally put in place to enable connectivity to SQ 318 as they wanted to have connections onto all four LHR flights, which has traditionally been the most important connection. That was before QF's nonstop PER-LHR flight, mind you.

Hopefully they bring back SQ 213 and SQ 226.

lokijuh

No sympathies! At least you're originating in the same time zone. During summer, the afternoon flights from SYD and MEL arrive at 21:20, which of course after midnight (00:20) "body clock time" and then the evening flights which actually arrive after midnight SG time (00:15/00:20) which is after 3am "body clock time".

bpk6h

This is ultimately the answer to OP's question. I can only assume that SQ analyzed O&D and connecting traffic levels across the flight options and determined that 213/226 had the least demand of the various options and thus will be the last to be restarted.

WISEMEN

It's interesting. I used to do these flights very frequently pre COVID. In my experience SQ 213 was actually busier than SQ 223, as it connected to most of the early am arrivals into Singapore. You're right about SQ 226 though, it was my favourite and more often than not seemed to have a fairly thin load. Anecdotally, most passengers seemed to terminate in Singapore, with a smattering of pax continuing on to Haneda and Jakarta. That fifth daily, announced in the early days of the pandemic, looks rather distant from where we are now...