United Evaluating U.S. to Singapore Nonstop
Dec 20, 2015, 9:41 am
#121
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Colorado
Programs: Lifetime UA 1K, Lifetime Hilton Diamond, Lifetime Marriott Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 1,261
Oh wait you were being serious? Hmm.
Personally I don't think UA's product is competitive against SQ's, and on a route like this (operating with special config or seat blocking) premium demand is key..IMO if UA attempts this, they will end up closing it after a year or two due to being unable to fill the modified plane (which would likely be required to turn a profit), and then blame the Singapore government for "subsidizing" SQ or something.
Dec 20, 2015, 10:00 am
#122
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Bangkok or San Francisco
Programs: United 1k, Marriott Lifetime PE, Former DL Gold, Former SQ Solitaire, HH Gold
Posts: 11,886
I know many people love SQ, but I am just curious why you prefer this route, assuming you have no connecting flight to JFK that has better connection times with SQ. SQ's flight is not the fastest option. JFK-HKG-SIN on CX and JFK-PEK-SIN on CA each take about an hour less than JFK-FRA-SIN, and CX's product is just as good as SQ's. Plus, CA and CX seem to offer cheaper fares.
Dec 20, 2015, 1:29 pm
#123
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 402
I've posted this before, but was told that SQ's elite passengers were very unhappy with the treatment and service on UA, and that UAs lack of responsiveness caused SQ to look around. SQ did tie ins with VX and B6 as a result. I'm sure they also got a good deal as part of it. Bottom line, SQ wanted some degree of control over the experience and VX and B6 provided it, UA did not.
Not sure about that. SQ serves LAX/SFO, and VX provides connecting flights to major markets at both. At JFK, B6 Does so, and UA does not even serve that. The only place SQ "needs" united is arguable at IAH, but I don't think that flight has a lot of through traffic, its mostly O/D.
JFK was never going to provide much downline traffic and B6 can pick up the smallish regional stuff where needed. Fair enough; that works in that specific market but that doesn't explain their EWR operations which ran for over 10 years with no UA codeshares. But to argue that connection off J or F and jumping on B6 is somehow "better" than UA is laughable. Service standards on UA have next to zero to do with the reason SQ and UA don't codeshare.
Last edited by goalie; Dec 20, 2015 at 3:51 pm Reason: discuss the issue, not each other
Jan 29, 2016, 9:29 am
#124
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego
Programs: UA LTP, AA LTG, DL Plat, Marriott LTT, HH Diamond
Posts: 865
Now announced today. Now United 1/2 on a 789.
Eff June 1, 2016.
UA1 SFO-SIN 2325-0645+2
UA2 SIN-SFO 0845-0915
Pretty exciting really.
FTF
Eff June 1, 2016.
UA1 SFO-SIN 2325-0645+2
UA2 SIN-SFO 0845-0915
Pretty exciting really.
FTF
Jan 29, 2016, 10:03 am
#125
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SJC
Programs: Southwest, Alaska, United, American Airlines
Posts: 994
Oh wait you were being serious? Hmm.
Personally I don't think UA's product is competitive against SQ's, and on a route like this (operating with special config or seat blocking) premium demand is key..IMO if UA attempts this, they will end up closing it after a year or two due to being unable to fill the modified plane (which would likely be required to turn a profit), and then blame the Singapore government for "subsidizing" SQ or something.
I respect SQ's inflight service, but UA SFO-SIN nonstop will offer a convenience proposition so compelling for time-sensitive North American-based flyers to Singapore that SQ's cabin products will remain the afterthought they presently are (because, again, United is already commanding higher average fares than Singapore Airlines).
Jan 29, 2016, 10:38 am
#126
Moderator: Smoking Lounge; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SFO
Programs: Lifetime (for now) Gold MM, HH Gold, Giving Tootsie Pops to UA employees, & a retired hockey goalie
Posts: 28,878
goalie
UA Forum Co-Moderator