UA to Launch LAX-SIN!
Jun 1, 2017, 4:21 pm
#91
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: UA MileagePlus 2MM
Posts: 1,567
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.
Guessing SIA may have been caught off guard here since UA kept this news pretty close to their chest, and announced it at a time when SIA is buffered on many fronts. If true that is not the textbook definition of how 'partners' are technically supposed to treat each other...I'm guessing whatever was reported earlier in the year of UA and SQ creating a closer business relationship, at whatever stage they got to, is now DOA.
Jun 1, 2017, 4:59 pm
#96
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
.....Guessing SIA may have been caught off guard here since UA kept this news pretty close to their chest, and announced it at a time when SIA is buffered on many fronts. If true that is not the textbook definition of how 'partners' are technically supposed to treat each other...I'm guessing whatever was reported earlier in the year of UA and SQ creating a closer business relationship, at whatever stage they got to, is now DOA.
For some reason, SQ seems to have been pushed to the sidelines.
AC signed a codeshare agreement with CX last year which allows CX to ferry AC's connecting pax from HKG to destinations such as SGN, MNL, and BKK. But then TG is the *A partner. As we've seen, more airlines are signing agreements outside of their alliances.
(Oddly this reminds me of the differences on OW with the 4 amigos and yet CX was one of the founding member airlines and look at what AA has done with LAX-HKG).
Jun 1, 2017, 5:36 pm
#100
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: UA MileagePlus 2MM
Posts: 1,567
The relationships among the *A partners seems to be one-sided for quite some time. UA and AC have their preferred BFFs (for lack of a better word) including those in the specific JVs.
For some reason, SQ seems to have been pushed to the sidelines.
AC signed a codeshare agreement with CX last year which allows CX to ferry AC's connecting pax from HKG to destinations such as SGN, MNL, and BKK. But then TG is the *A partner. As we've seen, more airlines are signing agreements outside of their alliances.
(Oddly this reminds me of the differences on OW with the 4 amigos and yet CX was one of the founding member airlines and look at what AA has done with LAX-HKG).
For some reason, SQ seems to have been pushed to the sidelines.
AC signed a codeshare agreement with CX last year which allows CX to ferry AC's connecting pax from HKG to destinations such as SGN, MNL, and BKK. But then TG is the *A partner. As we've seen, more airlines are signing agreements outside of their alliances.
(Oddly this reminds me of the differences on OW with the 4 amigos and yet CX was one of the founding member airlines and look at what AA has done with LAX-HKG).
Jun 1, 2017, 6:19 pm
#101
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
Jun 1, 2017, 6:22 pm
#102
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2014
Programs: AC SE100K-1MM, NH, DL, AA, BA, Global Entry/Nexus, APEC..
Posts: 18,877
I could be wrong but UA and SQ have never had a close relationship, whereas most of the bigger *A carriers have. It's a shame in a way because both have a lot to offer one another, but clearly there is some sort of disconnect. But as your example of AC funneling its pax thru HKG onto CX makes sense on a geographical and pax case, its weakens the case of the existence of alliances!
Maybe the alliance "marriages" aren't keeping everyone happy and now some players are dating others on the side.
It will also be interesting moving forward as when AC pax connect in HKG to SIN, the original 2 alliance options were SQ and UA (unless you want BR via TPE etc).
Now that UA is eliminating the 5th Freedoms, SQ can raise prices on connections.
Jun 1, 2017, 6:25 pm
#103
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
The relationships among the *A partners seems to be one-sided for quite some time. UA and AC have their preferred BFFs (for lack of a better word) including those in the specific JVs.
For some reason, SQ seems to have been pushed to the sidelines.
AC signed a codeshare agreement with CX last year which allows CX to ferry AC's connecting pax from HKG to destinations such as SGN, MNL, and BKK. But then TG is the *A partner. As we've seen, more airlines are signing agreements outside of their alliances.
(Oddly this reminds me of the differences on OW with the 4 amigos and yet CX was one of the founding member airlines and look at what AA has done with LAX-HKG).
For some reason, SQ seems to have been pushed to the sidelines.
AC signed a codeshare agreement with CX last year which allows CX to ferry AC's connecting pax from HKG to destinations such as SGN, MNL, and BKK. But then TG is the *A partner. As we've seen, more airlines are signing agreements outside of their alliances.
(Oddly this reminds me of the differences on OW with the 4 amigos and yet CX was one of the founding member airlines and look at what AA has done with LAX-HKG).
I doubt SQ leaves *A. They are extremely close with LH, and it's not like they hate UA the way KE and DL used to dislike each other. You mentioned CX, which is interesting because I could easily see CX leaving OW for *A due to rough relationships (including AA's recent snub) and their relatively close relationship with multiple *A carriers (including CA, LH, and AC).
Jun 1, 2017, 7:39 pm
#104
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: BOS/SIN
Programs: DL PM, OZ Diamond Plus, BA Silver
Posts: 1,803
LAX-SIN Flight Schedule
Flight UA 37 will depart Los Angeles at 8:55 p.m. daily, arriving in Singapore at 6:50 a.m. two days later (all times local). The return flight, UA 38, will depart Singapore's Changi Airport at 11:00 a.m. daily, arriving at Los Angeles International Airport at 10:15 a.m. the same day. Flying times will be approximately 17 hours, 55 minutes westbound and 15 hours, 15 minutes eastbound.
Flight UA 37 will depart Los Angeles at 8:55 p.m. daily, arriving in Singapore at 6:50 a.m. two days later (all times local). The return flight, UA 38, will depart Singapore's Changi Airport at 11:00 a.m. daily, arriving at Los Angeles International Airport at 10:15 a.m. the same day. Flying times will be approximately 17 hours, 55 minutes westbound and 15 hours, 15 minutes eastbound.
However I'm guessing SQ might start a new fifth-freedom flight ex-ICN — they have a long history there, with ICN-SFO and they used to fly ICN-YVR as well. Maybe ICN-ORD to send a message to UA
? Which entirely implausible given how SQ started SIN-AMS-ORD c. 2000 (which some claim is the source of all the bad blood between SQ and UA) but axed it after 9/11, and apparently OZ isn't doing well on ICN-ORD currently (they're less than daily now).
Jun 1, 2017, 8:13 pm
#105
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
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.
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.
The B789 has a range of 7625nm with 290 passengers (28J, 262 Y). United has 48J/204 Y, for a total of 252 passengers.
As such the range for 315 passengers A359 (7750nm) is a better starting point in determining the A350's range, compared to what United can get from its B789; with SQ's configuration then being 25 passengers lighter than United's compared to the standard configuration for which ranges are given.
So w/o taking into account that United's plane has an extra 25 passengers, at a minimum the SQ A359 ought to have a range that is 125nm longer. Given the extra range Airbus claims going 10 passengers lower (an extra 160 nm), my guess is that the SQ configuration has about another 500 nm of range (125 + 160x2.5).
And I might add that the 325 figure from Airbus is very far from what any airline is doing as "typical." OZ has 311 (28J, rest Y), Finn has 297 (48J, rest Y), QR has 283 (36 J, rest Y), CX has 280 (38 J, 28 PE, rest Y).
I have seen no signs that SQ has had to weight restrict the A359 so far by blocking off seats on SFO-SIN, and that also says that the aircraft is slightly more capable than UA's B789. Now SQ may not want to further push the envelope (which I think UA is needing another 350 sm of flight), but I don't see any indication that their A359 can't do LAX-SIN if they wanted to, if UA can do it with a less capable plane.