eng3

Maybe a pilot or someone familar with FAA rules can clarify this for me.

I thought that you could not have an 18hr flight departing at night due to crew duty time requirements. I recall needing to divert to SFO on HKG-EWR once because our flight got delayed from the morning to afternoon and eventhough the crew arrived later (extended rest), they said it was not possible to get us to EWR within the FAA rules given the shorter time allowed when departing later in the day.

N1120A

Duty time is a function of time on duty, so having enough crew in place and sufficient rest facilities assures the ability to operate. As long as you have enough relief crew, there is no issue, even when operating within the window of circadian low. The reason your flight couldn't continue is that the delay kept your crew from having enough rest.

eng3

The delay was known two days prior and the crew was rather specific that they had sufficient rest but the "max time" they were allowed for an afternoon departure was less than what is allowed in the morning (orig departure time) and it was not possible to complete the flight in that time frame. He was even specific to add that the time between arriving at the airport and taking off counted. Perhaps there was not sufficient relief crew, I assume a 777 has a maximum it can carry.
My question would be given this will be UA's longest flight, how close are they on the time and how often will there be an issue if it is delayed.

adambrau

I flew SIN-HKG-SFO-EWR on Monday and like others have noted UA896 SIN-HKG had maybe 50-60 people in the gate area prior to boarding. I definitely couldn't help thinking that this flight wouldn't last long, probably amongst the last daily int'l tag UA offered year round.

My initial thoughts on the intro of LAX-SIN and discontinuing HKG-SIN:

1. Go UA!

2. PLEASE upgrade the Eastbound menu (Congee/Omlette/Cereal) which is an awful way (for me) to begin a 15-16 hour flight. Just because flights leaves at 845am doesn't mean pax A) are all O/D and B) unless you have been in Singapore for a week your body clock is not on their time zone.

3. IMHO connecting via SFO and onto NYC / East Coast is longer for those folks as opposed via HKG or NRT. Not taking price into account here but the nonstop in Polaris has traditionally been a top dollar ticket, so using the Asian partner for the local segment is maybe only a price wash/small differential and a few less UA metal PQD's.

4. Really quite staggering that UA chose SIN over HKG as the opening salvo in the LAX expansion game. Shows someone in HQ is thinking outside the box and that is something UA doesn't get much credit for usually.

5. As a result, SIA must be totally pissed as they are already experiencing tough operating conditions. And for the second time in 365 days here comes UA nipping again at their heals on prime routes. Imagine this could, over time, compel SQ to evaluate their membership in *A. Without going O/T DL/ SkyTeam really could benefit from another (any) A-list Asian partner(s).

sinoflyer

As some of us have noted, in this thread and others in the past, SQ has lots of problems right now. UA is financially stronger, and taking full advantage of 787-8/9's capabilities. The last thing SQ needs is to leave *A and upset the feeds to its network that has been developing for ~ 20 years now. SQ is actually highly dependent on UA in that regard, and not so much the other way around.

Kmxu

UA had/has two tag flights (NRT-SIN and HKG-SIN) to SIN with 772s. The total number of pax to SIN on UA metal does not change much with two 789s. Why should SQ worry about UA's change? UA should have to worry about losing customers from east coast because of the extra flight time on plane. Perhaps, UA would bring back a 738 for HKG-SIN if the ex-CEO had some influence on this change.

DA201

You can rebook EWR-NRT-SIN. From my experience, UA has priced EWR/ORD/IAD-NRT-SIN the same as EWR/ORD/IAD-SFO-SIN. They are still letting east coast passengers connect in Asia, just not onto UA metal. And they are not even charging a premium if it's onto ANA because of the JV.

sinoflyer

Other than JFK, SQ has no presence on the east coast. To tap into EWR, BOS, IAD, MIA, ... SQ would require transfer on another carrier -- UA, VX or others. Not very attractive, and less so in comparison to UA's on-line connections.

hirohito888

Highly unlikely for UA to enter the bloodbath of HKG-BKK, fifth freedom route flown by lots of carriers at dirt cheap fares. In addition to the LCC flying to DMK driving the fares super low.

This is the end of UA fifth freedom flying.

N1120A

The delay was likely known because conditions wouldn't allow the aircraft to operate non-stop, and they likely took the delay and crew change because they didn't want to have to operate more crew on the outbound.

adambrau

Not saying SIA is not going to drop *A BASED SOLEY with UA deciding to switch 2 connecting services to 2 nonstop flights. On two prime SIA routes. A bad 20 year relationship is still just that. With SIA currently re-evaluating all aspects of operations given their last financial report which showed an uncharacteristic loss and at best a future full of uncertainty. What happens in airline boardrooms is not always in sync with popular lore on Flyertalk or Airliners, as this announcement today indicates. And which could just be among the first of many actions which compel Alliance partners (of all alliances) to look outside their traditional club to protect the bottom line.

FlyHighInTheSky

Anybody know why J is blocked on the inaugural LAX-SIN?

sinoflyer

One major difference is that SQ is not known to be an outside-of-the-box thinker/actor. We shall see.

oopl

With that move they will also break some connections for people connecting at EWR.

Longboater

Reread the article. It states that a 325 seat A350-900 configuration, as given by Airbus as they increased capacity by ten seats, the range is 7,600 nm. I read the 7,590 nm range elsewhere and I can't seem to find it. It was on the Airbus website but that was before they updated their information for the 280 tonne version.

Irregardless, the given A350-900 capacity by Airbus is 11% larger than the given 787-9 capacity by Boeing, which is 290 passengers, and the range for both aircraft is more or less a rounding error in difference. That will change with the 278/280 tonne version of the A350-900, enabling PAL to launch JFK-MNL. (Let's see how long that lasts.)

Of course if an airline configured the 787-9 and the A350-900 with the same number of seats, the A350-900 would have the much longer range.

This announcement, which I strongly doubt SQ saw coming, puts SQ in a real bind. (SFO-SIN may have taken SQ by surprise but I doubt anyone in their Americas Department believed for a second that UA would start LAX-SIN, let alone ahead of when they intended to resume nonstop SIN-LAX service.) UA will be starting LAX-SIN a full year ahead of SQ resuming LAX-SIN. (I believe SQ's plan was to restart EWR/LAX-SIN at the end of October 2018 but with Airbus's delays it may have to be pushed back.) What further complicates this is UA will be using a standard configuration 787-9 while SQ had planned to use a premium, low density 170 seat A350-900 with only J and W. The ULR version of the A350-900 was designed for EWR-SIN as SQ could probably use the 275 tonne A350-900 with the ULR seating configuration to make SIN-LAX work.