UA Ending LAX-SIN, going 2x daily SFO-SIN, 27 OCT 2018
#256
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: UA-1K MM, AA-Gold, DL-Silver, AS-MVP
Posts: 2,508
The big difference is that into both HKG and NRT UA had multiple flights so a lot more routings (that did not require a flight south to connect in SF)), and could take the lower yields because (1) they needed to to service corporate accounts (see CO efforts to go with a 737 in 2012 and how the failed spectacularly), (2) at least as to HKG the plane would have otherwise just sat on the ground, incurring expensive ground charges, (3) as you note, the flights were much shorter stage length. This was also an era before the ME3 had ramped up.
United has to get a real premium to make a 17+ hour flight (with weight restrictions Westbound for much of the year) work. Its just a different model, and I have my doubt that they can make two flights work for them ex-SFO once SQ is siphoning off some/lots of high value traffic with its EWR and LAX flights, alone with a direct (or x2) head to head. And I might add that the issue is not just J, SQ offers PE (only PE ex-EWR and LAX) and my guess is that it pulls much of the high value Y traffic, which makes the economics yet harder.
United has to get a real premium to make a 17+ hour flight (with weight restrictions Westbound for much of the year) work. Its just a different model, and I have my doubt that they can make two flights work for them ex-SFO once SQ is siphoning off some/lots of high value traffic with its EWR and LAX flights, alone with a direct (or x2) head to head. And I might add that the issue is not just J, SQ offers PE (only PE ex-EWR and LAX) and my guess is that it pulls much of the high value Y traffic, which makes the economics yet harder.
SQ is only adding net 82J seats to the market (SIN-EWR/LAX minus SIN-ICN-LAX). But fine, it's possible that SQ gets the bulk of the J traffic and UA cuts SIN, or maybe UA is confident enough that it can still generate the profitable yields for most 1-stop markets they can connect.
#257
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA 1k now; AA (no status); HY Diamond; SPG Platinum
Posts: 707
But UA has always flown 2x daily flights to SIN. Before 787 and even while SQ had A345 flying to EWR/LAX, UA had 1x HKG-SIN and 1x NRT-SIN on 747/777. Stage length were shorter but they were also expensive 5th freedom flights with bottom feeder yields in Y. UA knows there's a demand to/from SIN and the shift to SFO and 787 pretty much reduces capacity and helps manage on the yield.
While there will be EWR-based J passengers who will defect to SQ direct, I would like to think that the US-SFO-SIN network is capable of supporting 2x daily SFO-SIN on UA (or up to 4x daily when SQ does 10-weekly).
While there will be EWR-based J passengers who will defect to SQ direct, I would like to think that the US-SFO-SIN network is capable of supporting 2x daily SFO-SIN on UA (or up to 4x daily when SQ does 10-weekly).
HKG/SIN at one point was on a 738.
I still don’t think twice daily SFO/SIN is sustainable in long run. 10x on SQ direct, 7x one stop on SQ via HKG, 14x on UA per week is just too way too much capacity. Especially now with EWR coming back online for SQ.
#258
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: SFO/SJC
Programs: UA Silver, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 14,888
#259
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
There are a lot of facts which suggest that UA is about to get pushed out of a lot of this market, back to a single SFO-SIN flight.
#260
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: NYC (Primarily EWR)
Programs: UA 1K / *G, Marriott Bonvoy Gold; Avis PC
Posts: 9,005
I think it's worth seeing how it shakes out. If R availability on the morning SFO-SIN becomes plentiful, then there's a point. But people were bemoaning the fact that SQ was going to complete head-to-head with UA on SFO-SIN...and that has turned out okay so far AFAIK.
#261
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I think it's worth seeing how it shakes out. If R availability on the morning SFO-SIN becomes plentiful, then there's a point. But people were bemoaning the fact that SQ was going to complete head-to-head with UA on SFO-SIN...and that has turned out okay so far AFAIK.
Ask yourself, why would you fly EWR-SFO-SIN or LAX-SFO-SIN on UA in J when you can fly direct on SQ in J??? Most travelers in those markets will have a choice.
#262
My coworkers and I have flown SFO-HKG-TYO-SFO on UA/NH rather than SFO-HKG-SFO CX/SQ (at more or less the same price) several times now because we want to get those bonus RDMs and PQMs on UA.
#263
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,455
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
#264
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Many travelers already have a choice between UA and SQ from both SFO and NYC, and choose UA. That's not going to change.
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
But there is no way I would take UA EWR-SFO-SIN in J vs going EWR-SIN on SQ in J. And I think that almost everyone who is NOT tied down hard into a FF program or with restrictive corporate travel policies will take the direct.
And I'm not defending SQ's J seat on the A359. I've not flown it (and frankly I'm not a big SQ fan, they are too stuffy for my taste, I'll take CX or OZ or ANA/JAL anyday over them, and have for years) but am aware of the issues with it, hell I identified them above. (copied below)
and P.s. I LOVE the A359. I've flown it on OZ and CX, its a nice plane. I prefer it to the B789. And both OZ and CX have very nice J seats, so its not the A/C that is at fault.
And to be clear about the A350 J seat on SQ, the issue with it is length. Anyone over about 6' with big feed can't lay flat on it, you have to angle your legs. Both the SQ seat (which is direct aisle access) and the sCO J seat on the B789 are listed as 78" long, but they both have the same issue, which is that they rely upon an undersized footwell for part of that length. The sCO seat has the additional issue of being narrower (only 22" wide) vs the SQ seat which is much wider (28"). The bulkhead seats are better on both birds.
Neither product is very good length wise, and UA does not really have an advantage here... If UA had a different seat I would think it would pick up the traffic from those who were taller over time, but it does not...
Look, I agree that the Polaris seat is much better than the sCO seat currently on the B789. It solves the length problem. Lack of PE is a big issue for UA. SQ's seats are too small, but that is an issue for some, not all, and lets be serious, the number of SE travelers who are over 6 feet is not great, which is why SQ has elected to in general go with seats that are not as long as I (at 6'2") would like... They made a business decisions based upon their demographic.
Neither product is very good length wise, and UA does not really have an advantage here... If UA had a different seat I would think it would pick up the traffic from those who were taller over time, but it does not...
Look, I agree that the Polaris seat is much better than the sCO seat currently on the B789. It solves the length problem. Lack of PE is a big issue for UA. SQ's seats are too small, but that is an issue for some, not all, and lets be serious, the number of SE travelers who are over 6 feet is not great, which is why SQ has elected to in general go with seats that are not as long as I (at 6'2") would like... They made a business decisions based upon their demographic.
#265
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: ZRH/LUX/LON
Programs: BA GGL/ VS Gold. Former: UA 1K (10 years+) , EY partners Plat, SQ PPS Club, SU Gold, LH SEN/HON
Posts: 770
You are NOT the target audience. Airlines make money off of business travelers, and they are not interested in adding an extra 2-3 hours and a stop to a 14 hour journey, going NYC-SFO-SIN vs. EWR-SIN is about an extra 8 hours, if you leave sufficient time in SFO to avoid issues...
And lots of flyers ex-NYC will take EWR-SFO-SIN on UA vs. AS EWR/JFK-SFO - SQ SFO-SIN. The change in airlines - which involves an outside of security transfer - and corporate rates on UA will/has kept a lot of travelers from even considering SQ.. Hell, if I had to go from lower manhatten/west side to SIN, I would prefer to go EWR-SFO-SIN on UA given lie flats vs. taking AS and having to go outside of security. UA would get that sale from me, especially if the price was lower.
But there is no way I would take UA EWR-SFO-SIN in J vs going EWR-SIN on SQ in J. And I think that almost everyone who is NOT tied down hard into a FF program or with restrictive corporate travel policies will take the direct.
And I'm not defending SQ's J seat on the A359. I've not flown it (and frankly I'm not a big SQ fan, they are too stuffy for my taste, I'll take CX or OZ or ANA/JAL anyday over them, and have for years) but am aware of the issues with it, hell I identified them above. (copied below)
and P.s. I LOVE the A359. I've flown it on OZ and CX, its a nice plane. I prefer it to the B789. And both OZ and CX have very nice J seats, so its not the A/C that is at fault.
And lots of flyers ex-NYC will take EWR-SFO-SIN on UA vs. AS EWR/JFK-SFO - SQ SFO-SIN. The change in airlines - which involves an outside of security transfer - and corporate rates on UA will/has kept a lot of travelers from even considering SQ.. Hell, if I had to go from lower manhatten/west side to SIN, I would prefer to go EWR-SFO-SIN on UA given lie flats vs. taking AS and having to go outside of security. UA would get that sale from me, especially if the price was lower.
But there is no way I would take UA EWR-SFO-SIN in J vs going EWR-SIN on SQ in J. And I think that almost everyone who is NOT tied down hard into a FF program or with restrictive corporate travel policies will take the direct.
And I'm not defending SQ's J seat on the A359. I've not flown it (and frankly I'm not a big SQ fan, they are too stuffy for my taste, I'll take CX or OZ or ANA/JAL anyday over them, and have for years) but am aware of the issues with it, hell I identified them above. (copied below)
and P.s. I LOVE the A359. I've flown it on OZ and CX, its a nice plane. I prefer it to the B789. And both OZ and CX have very nice J seats, so its not the A/C that is at fault.
Frankly this is too much UA kool aid . We'll see how long that second SFO-SIN lasts. As soon as it marked as a loss, the flight may go away. UA has wide competition from all angles on this route.
I personally am not about go to on a junk 757 that's often delayed to change planes in SFO etc just to get to Singapore.
The EWR-SIN non stop on SQ or the JFK-FRA-SIN option is far far superior, and is here to ruin UA's party.
I can see the EWR-SIN non stop flight as an excuse for more employees to book business class directly, Google ( unless you are high up in the food chain) allows for business class for long flights over 12-14 hours, even for the receptionist, and that EWR-SIN non stop fits the bill nicely. And Google is not beholden to force its employees to fly UA exclusively.
Time will tell.
SQ has a corp travel program as well, I used to be a member. The discounts are not as generous though.
#266
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 21,406
I do agree that there's more US-Singapore capacity than demand right now. SQ clearly didn't like UA entering the SFO-SIN market and has decided to retaliate. In the short term, customers will be the winners as UA and SQ try to undercut each other on price. Longer-term, it's likely that customers will be the losers, as one airline or the other will retreat and thus allow airfare to rise.
#267
You are NOT the target audience. Airlines make money off of business travelers, and they are not interested in adding an extra 2-3 hours and a stop to a 14 hour journey, going NYC-SFO-SIN vs. EWR-SIN is about an extra 8 hours, if you leave sufficient time in SFO to avoid issues...
#269
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: SFO
Programs: United 1MM GS, Marriott Platinum Elite, Hilton Diamond, Hertz President's Circle
Posts: 283
Many travelers already have a choice between UA and SQ from both SFO and NYC, and choose UA. That's not going to change.
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
#270
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA 1k now; AA (no status); HY Diamond; SPG Platinum
Posts: 707
Many travelers already have a choice between UA and SQ from both SFO and NYC, and choose UA. That's not going to change.
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
btw, have you actually flown the SQ 350? Based on your dislike for the short sCO seats with too tight footwells, I would expect you to hate the "sleep diagonal" SQ seat as well.
Its like comparing Macintosh vs gala Apple.
Majority probably didnt have have that choice given corporate contracts.
Heck I am being asked to fly UA because company bought too many United ticket. Every single year after August. This will happen.
But the load on HKG/SIN was just beyond bad.
Often on weekends I would leave factory in Shenzhen go to airport on Friday to catch $99 special go to sin and visit colleague and come back Sunday. It’s just so easy to get last minutes ticket.
Last edited by WineCountryUA; Oct 12, 2018 at 5:55 pm Reason: merging consecutive posts by same member