hirohito888

More routings via NRT/HKG? Only markets that have to fly longer via SFO are ORD/EWR/IAD/HNL and marginally IAH. So UA will lose out on EWR passengers who are willing to pay for the direct flight. But otherwise ORD/IAD/IAH passengers can still choose to go either through SFO, TYO, or another carrier. In return SFO can tap into new 1-stop markets in the US such as AUS, LAS, etc.

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.

krispykrme

emcampbe

spin88

agreed, but this undercuts the narrative that UA will just do peachy keen on two ULH SFO-SIN because, well they used to run both HKG-SIN and NRT-SIN up until 2015. UA provided as good of connectivity to SIN via HKG and NRT as did basically any carrier (and better than did SQ, where you had to go to SFO or LAX to connect). But that world is gone. The question is can UA pull in enough high value traffic to run - with weight restrictions westbound - two 789s when SQ is not only running 10x SFO-SIN, but also EWR-SIN and LAX-SIN, and SQ offers PE and better service (and many would say a better J seat)....

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.

PsiFighter37

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.

spin88

United has a big enough market share, and enough corporate accounts, that they can run a flight SFO-SIN. And it should be profitable. LAX-SIN did not work out so hot, and I have my doubts that they will be able to run two flights when both LAX and NYC have direct flights on SQ. Most corporate accounts will let J passangers fly on a non-contract carrier to avoid a stop or if its x hours shorter, and that is going to cost them traffic even from corporate accounts.

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.

GoSh4rks

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.

Kacee

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.

spin88

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.

OpenSky

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.

jsloan

I simply cannot fathom where this idea of hordes of NYC-origin passengers flying to SIN via SFO is coming from. EWR-SIN may very well take passengers from UA, but not from EWR-SFO-SIN. It will take passengers from EWR-NRT-SIN. And the JFK-FRA-SIN flight is hardly new.

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.

GoSh4rks

I'm not the target audience because I'm a UA FF, or because I'm not flying the specific routing in question? Because I am certainly a business traveler in J..

spartacusmcfly

Let's sit back and watch it play out. We'll have a good sense in 6-9 months whether 2x/day will work.

SFOdelayed

krispykrme