UA to Launch LAX-SIN!
Jun 1, 2017, 8:18 pm
#106
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: FLL/BCT
Programs: MR Platinum, and a certain status at an unnamed airline
Posts: 111
I don't think Jose meant anything more than just sharing information. I, for one, find it interesting to see which work groups are assigned to which routes.
Jun 1, 2017, 8:26 pm
#107
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
Jun 1, 2017, 8:47 pm
#108
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,454
Those are just the bases assigned to the route at launch. Hopefully it'll only be for a few months (<1yr) until the subsidiaries are fully integrated... then the bonanza is over for some of the more junior West Coast sCO flight attendants who have been able to hold some pretty choice flying! 😉
Jun 1, 2017, 9:38 pm
#109
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
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).It was my understanding that the relationship was fraught from day one of SQ negotiating to join Star Alliance, with Chicago feeling like SQ were arrogant given their assets and size relative to their demands, and SQ feeling that UA was a bully among Star, dictating terms to all members.
When 9/11 happened and UAL's future was questioned in bankruptcy, it was my understanding that SQ was back-channeling to set up a partnership with VX, who's business plan at that point hinged upon UAL Corp. liquidating, and VX taking over SFO.
Clearly history played out a little differently than both had expected, and upon UAUA's emergence from Ch. 11, the relationship was at an all time low, and never really recovered. Somebody said it's not quite DL/KE territory yet, but it kinda actually is, albeit with a quiet pragmatism since they are both still in the same alliance. But make no mistake about the mutual feelings towards each other.
Clearly there are Singapore execs livid at this (and the SFO) flight, and rightfully so. The snub continues all the way down to the flight numbers. Unfortunate for them, a decade and a half has passed and we're back to UAL calling the shots and holding most of the cards.
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!
Last edited by tuolumne; Jun 1, 2017 at 11:37 pm
Jun 1, 2017, 9:58 pm
#110
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: FLL/BCT
Programs: MR Platinum, and a certain status at an unnamed airline
Posts: 111
Jun 1, 2017, 10:23 pm
#111
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pacific Northwest
Programs: UA Gold 1MM, AS 75k, AA Plat, Bonvoyed Gold, Honors Dia, Hyatt Explorer, IHG Plat, ...
Posts: 16,859
According to Wikipedia, UAL was in bankruptcy 2002- Feb 2006. VX didn't fly until Aug 2007. Was VX dreaming about taking over SFO from UA before they had even launched their first flight?
Jun 1, 2017, 10:43 pm
#112
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: BKK/SEL/YQG
Posts: 2,543
I have a Nov SQ LAX-ICN-SIN-BKK award. I picked ICN simply because ICN is cheaper to transit though. I wouldn't mind it replaced with something else if it get axed.
Jun 1, 2017, 10:47 pm
#113
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: UA-1K MM, AA-Gold, DL-Silver, AS-MVP
Posts: 2,509
Remember in the late 90s UAL was larger than the combined UA/CO of 2010, and their 1999 United First Suite, Dom, and caviar (even before the flatbed) meant their soft product was quite comparable, if not at parity with SQ's.
It was my understanding that the relationship was fraught from day one of Star Alliance's formation, with Chicago feeling like SQ were arrogant given their assets and size relative to their demands, and SQ feeling that UA was a bully among Star, dictating terms to all members.
It was my understanding that the relationship was fraught from day one of Star Alliance's formation, with Chicago feeling like SQ were arrogant given their assets and size relative to their demands, and SQ feeling that UA was a bully among Star, dictating terms to all members.
Also, SQ didn't join *A until April 2000, 3 years after it was founded by UA/LH/AC/SK/TG.
Jun 1, 2017, 10:58 pm
#114
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Clearly there are Singapore execs livid at this (and the SFO) flight, and rightfully so. The snub continues all the way down to the flight numbers. Unfortunate for them, a decade and a half has passed and we're back to UAL calling the shots and holding most of the cards.
Doubtful. SQ's situation is going to get worse before to gets better. I'm not sure what their plan is, but I think a lot of us would agree that perhaps their reputation for being difficult and arrogant to deal with in Star isn't entirely unjustified. No question you had Tilton and Smisek (especially the latter, from what I've heard), take a hardball "we don't really need you" attitude towards Singapore.
Doubtful. SQ's situation is going to get worse before to gets better. I'm not sure what their plan is, but I think a lot of us would agree that perhaps their reputation for being difficult and arrogant to deal with in Star isn't entirely unjustified. No question you had Tilton and Smisek (especially the latter, from what I've heard), take a hardball "we don't really need you" attitude towards Singapore.
Do I know the whole story? No. But I don't think "arrogance" is at the root of it.
Nor should I add, do I think UA added SFO-SIN to "get" SQ, rather I think they saw an opportunity, had extra A/C, and since they don't coordinate with SQ or have a JV with them, took it. Good for United. Gold star for the person who saw the opportunity and seized it.
Other than the number on the LAX-SIN flight, I also see this as UA trying to make money off an opportunity and getting a jump on it. I am happy to see them competing, if not on product, on new routes.
Jun 1, 2017, 11:24 pm
#115
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Programs: AA Gold AAdvantage Elite, Rapids Reward
Posts: 38,335
Jun 1, 2017, 11:47 pm
#117
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,324
Dated Dec 1998: Aviation Week: Singapore Airlines Close Signing Star Alliance
Originally Posted by Aviation Weekly
Singapore Airlines Chief Executive Cheong Choong Kong finally revealed his hand, saying it is "more likely now that we'll join" the Star Alliance. After months of speculation, Cheong used a news briefing at the Association of Asia Pacific Airlines annual meeting last week in Manila to confirm his intentions. After concluding alliances recently with Lufthansa and SAS, he is actively seeking closure on agreements with other Star airlines. The final decision and announcement will be made ...
There are some issues and dates that don't add up with this story, and I've head something very different, and from people at SQ: That SQ elite travelers transiting to United F after traveling in SQ F/J got treated like crap in the Smisik era, causing SQ to loose face and have to address issues. This was - so I was told - a large part of the reason why SQ starting putting F/J passengers on VX and B6 rather than UA. (and SQ's indirect ownership was likely also a part of it).
Do I know the whole story? No. But I don't think "arrogance" is at the root of it.
Nor should I add, do I think UA added SFO-SIN to "get" SQ, rather I think they saw an opportunity, had extra A/C, and since they don't coordinate with SQ or have a JV with them, took it. Good for United. Gold star for the person who saw the opportunity and seized it.
Other than the number on the LAX-SIN flight, I also see this as UA trying to make money off an opportunity and getting a jump on it. I am happy to see them competing, if not on product, on new routes.
Do I know the whole story? No. But I don't think "arrogance" is at the root of it.
Nor should I add, do I think UA added SFO-SIN to "get" SQ, rather I think they saw an opportunity, had extra A/C, and since they don't coordinate with SQ or have a JV with them, took it. Good for United. Gold star for the person who saw the opportunity and seized it.
Other than the number on the LAX-SIN flight, I also see this as UA trying to make money off an opportunity and getting a jump on it. I am happy to see them competing, if not on product, on new routes.
As far as your conversations with SQ execs...Well what do you expect them to say? That's a perfect way to both throw some shade at UA, and look like they're doing right by their customers. I think the reality is that Smisek had less than a friendly relationship with them, just as Tilton had. I'm not exactly a Smisek defender, but I don't have a problem with this if true. Personally I do find something inherently arrogant about SQ - the arrogance of growth perhaps. But that's just my opinion.
Last edited by tuolumne; Jun 1, 2017 at 11:58 pm
Jun 2, 2017, 12:40 am
#118
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,338
Read about this just as I landed in Singapore on an SQ flight.
I think it is great for UA. Much better to select SIN as an destination than trying to restart the historically often failed LAX-HKG route UA had experienced.
As a DC based flyer, unless UA offers more flatbed transcon flights out of IAD, my best option will still be going through NRT on UA/NH or UA/CA combo with flatbed seats.
I think it is great for UA. Much better to select SIN as an destination than trying to restart the historically often failed LAX-HKG route UA had experienced.
As a DC based flyer, unless UA offers more flatbed transcon flights out of IAD, my best option will still be going through NRT on UA/NH or UA/CA combo with flatbed seats.
Last edited by UA_Flyer; Jun 2, 2017 at 7:21 am
Jun 2, 2017, 5:01 am
#119
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 57,617
This. Since I can't do IAD-SIN nonstop, I'd rather do 14 hours to NRT and 7 hours to SIN than 5 hours to LAX and 18 hours to SIN.
Jun 2, 2017, 5:20 am
#120
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Washington, DC
Programs: United Premier 1K 1MM; AA Plat Pro; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott Platinum; Avis President's Club
Posts: 2,529
Good to see UA competing internationally out of LAX now. Glad they are still focused on serving SIN with 2 flight options but would love to see other SE Asia destinations from the West Coast like Bangkok or Vietnam.