JVPhoto

Curious as well.

On my last MEL-LAX flight in J there were some families, random people...no one really screamed business exec to me. I'll do a survey in 2 months when I'm on it again.
There's tourism in both countries but I could see more business traffic wanting to go straight into BKK vs. MEL.

I just paid about $5100 for a r/t SFO-NRT-BKK-NRT-SJC (on NH), would I would have paid that on UA for SFO-BKK-SFO.

N830MH

Yes, that is one. It will be on A350-900ULR aircraft. Only they have enough range to reaching into SIN from SFO, but I think it would be SFO-SIN nonstop. The range is 8,400 miles.

According of Great Circle Mapper:

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=SFO-SIN

And for LAX/ORD-SIN, I don't think have enough range to reach into SIN. It was out of range. The range is only 8,700nm, but they don't have enough range. It was not right aircraft. They have to be on 777-200LR and the entire 77LR has more capabilities, more range, and more fuel-efficient. They do have more than 10,000nm.

c1mth0g

When SQ had US-SIN nonstop, it was LAX and EWR, not SFO. I wonder why ...

chinatraderjmr

Probably because SQ already had 2 flights a day to SFO and only 1 to LAX so made sense to have 2 to each city instead of 3 and 1. LA is just as profitable and business oriented as SFO (depending on the business of course) While SFO is closer to silicone valley, LA has larger (or at least as large) import and manufacturing industries as SFO not to mention connecting out of LAX was easier since at the time SQ code shared with then star alliance partner USAir.

What is really funny is now that USAir is no longer part of Star Alliance, SQ would rather code share with Virgin America then UA. If you want to fly to Asia on SQ out of NYC in J of F and the direct flight thru FRA is full, SQ will try to sell Virgin to the West coast connecting to SQ flights - They didn't like putting us on UA when UA flew from JFK and certainly would not think of EWR now. SQ must really fear for their reputation and not trust UA - Ive flown SQ from SFO-ICN plenty of times and had then put me on UA from JFK (and really had to fight them to tkt it that way which is bizarre, especially on full F tkts) When I would tell SQ ticketing I didn't want to fly Virgin they ALWAYS tried pushing me to fly AA instead of UA (Guess they are not happy being in the same alliance)

c1mth0g

If I remember correctly, before the nonstops were introduced, SQ had two flights a day each to LAX, SFO and NYC. When they introduced SIN-LAX and SIN-EWR non stop, that replaced SIN-TPE-LAX and SIN-AMS-EWR. So they could have easily decided to replace SIN-HKG-SFO or SIN-ICN-SFO with SIN-SFO nonstop ...

As to your other point, UA customer service, inflight service and reliability is so terrible, I don't blame SQ.

airzim

It's the opposite reason from what you think. UA doesn't want SQ's business. Once you factor in the prorate from a long haul from SIN to the US gateway, whatever residual ticket value UA would get on the domestic sector is pennies. UA would rather carry the traffic themselves either from a long haul or sell that seat to another internal US UA passengers. It has absolutely nothing to do with service levels. Otherwise, why would SQ put someone on B6 at JFK when flying longhair J or F from SIN/FRA? Has anyone ever flown US transcon? Awful.

US and VX were willing to take that business given their lack of a network from the US West Coast. It was 'incremental' opportunity for them. For UA there's no benefit to take this junk yield.

Sorry this blows the anti-UA narrative. But UA is driving this, not SQ.

username

I guess another factor is the booming Asian discount carriers hurting UA's intra-Asia yield. So, there is less incentive to operate those 5th freedom routes (and UA has eliminated a few already). That combined with advance in aircraft range and desire to save time, mean the possibility of nonstops.

For me, once the flight time goes above 10 hours, it goes from "take a nap and you are there" to "what? we are not there yet?" Boy one has to really bring food onboard for Y given what UA does

fastair

I don't have any knowledge on the subject, but my opinion is that I agree with you. It all comes down to the prorates, the $$ they get. Grandiose ideas that the CSR at SQ have some say in their opinion of domestic connections in the US seems a bit thin vs a corporate decision to maximize revenue. An example of this is AA refusing to use DL as a ticketing partner. It isn't because the ticket agent at AA thinks DL is a sub par domestic airline, it's because the rates that DL charges AA leaves them with little $$ for themselves. It all comes down to availability for dollar given to the partner. UA would rather sell on their own for retail than let SQ sell for a small prorate.

But hey, this FT theory that SQ refuses to let their passengers fly on UA because of service has been around for a few years...why not believe it if it fits your vision of the world?

flybit

if UA dropped BKK from its "hub" in NRT, why would they start a nonstop from SFO? I assume they could not make money from NRT, I'm not sure they could make any more money from SFO.
However I would love BKK to come back or at least UA to allow competitive fares with code shares from HKG-BKK on TG

Acastus

There is currently no nonstop service to BKK from the US at all. There is a lot of service between NRT and BKK. Different routes, different competitive environment. Out of EWR I'd definitely prefer to take the p.s. service to SFO then direct to BKK and would be happy to pay for it.

I doubt UA will be interested in a SIN nonstop since they'd have to have specific equipment (A350ULR) for it. BKK could be done from SFO with current fleet, it's a shorter distance than EWR to HKG.

exwannabe

Well, the OP only said US-SIN.

Perhaps UA is considering extending the island hopper into the "mega island hopper". HNL ..... GUM-TPE-MNL-HKT-SIN.

OK, I know SIN is not on an island, but everything around it is so it kind of counts. And it would be an endpoint.

BKK would be a better choice than HKT, but that really violates the "island" rule.

I think this is about as likely as seeing a non-stop SFO-SIN flight on UA.

goodeats21

Without a rehash of the whole "United abandons BKK" thread, there was no statement that NRT<->BKK was not profitable.

I would love a SFO<->BKK route and I think it could be a great idea with people paying a premium for nonstop/direct flight from USA, but that is just one option. They could reinstate the NRT connection. They could also serve it with a small tag from HKG.

For this thread, the point is there seems to be a lot of 777 availability coming open and wondering where they will end up.

wpr8e

Singapore is most definitely an island. Surrounded by water on all sides.

halls120

As someone already noted upthread, they need engine spares, don't they?

What about putting a 777 on a 764 route, move the 764 to a 763 route, and push the 763s to the 757 TATL routes so they could eliminate the winter fuel stops in Goose Bay?

wxguy

Possibly more than the average number are coming up for D checks soon? A D check happens about every six years and can take two to three months.