Hipplewm

I don't fly an insane amount like others here, but I have flown to SIN 3 times since the ending of the HKG-SIN flight and 2 on EVA and once on LH, my next one is already booked on EVA and after that I may try SQ from EWR

Flying out of SFO from the east coast just blows, although I much prefer a later flight and noon-4pm arrival

spin88

The list is helpful, but regional HQs are a small part of SQ's economy (or J traffic). The major industries are media/advertising, finance/wealth management/trading, biotech/phramacuticals, and high tech. Singapore is also a major center for oil and gas companies, both exploration and trading, and has a major chemical industry.

I would assume that SQ would pull down its JFK-FRA-SIN flight at some point, or perhaps as you suggest (given the lower CASM and ability to take economy class passangers on that routing, which it is not going EWR-SIN) downgage the flight. But I don't see SQ cutting its flights ex-LAX, nor stopping SFO-SIN. The only thing I can see happening is them trimming back SFO-SIN to 7x week vs the 10x they are going with now. I don' t see them pulling SFO-HKG which draws a lot of F/J traffic going to HKG. What I don't see is UA being able to run SFO-SIN x2/day.

Every corporate travel policy I know allows non-perferred carrier when its (1) cheaper or (2) a direct vs. connection is possible, or travel time is reduced by x amount.

The problem as others have noted (including Hipplewm) is that domestic-SFO is seriously subpar, and going via SFO is often 2-3 hours more flight time vs. going via NRT or HKG). If you look at the list that DA201 posted of HQs (and again, I think it substantially understates the traffic ex-NYC and LAX and also BOS) connecting at SFO has NO advantage ex-NYC, MSP, SEA, LAX, BOS, DTW, ORD, ATL, and DFW (and I might add IAH, not on DA201's list, noting that oil/gas is a major industry in SIN) all of which have better connections via Asia (NRT/HKG/TPE) or Europe/ME3.

And the cities that remain, BOI and CVG, its probably quicker to fly two stop via SEA than to fly south to SFO, and CVG connecting in EWR or Europe is probably better, you would not want to fly via SFO.

I just don't see a SFO-SIN routing being able to pull in much high value traffic where people have other better options, especially with SQ offering LAX and EWR flights.

+1

cesco.g

While times did change, UA once flew 2x daily SFO-HKG. I do remember taking the afternoon/early evening HKG-SFO, allowing for convenient daytime connection from other S.E. Asian destinations.

JHake10

narvik

Oh, my giddy aunt!

There's me seeing UA28 mentioned several times in the last few days/weeks, and not knowing what that was....searching online for it....and coming up with IAH-AUS:
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/...tory/20171127/

Took me a while to figure out it was this new flight.

Duh!

spin88

It is not that he paid SQ $200 more that moves the needle, its that (assuming he did not have a corporate deal with UA) he did not give UA $7000 to take him EWR-SFO-SIN, he gave SQ $7200 to take him EWR-SIN.

Again, I have no doubt that UA can profitably run SFO-SIN on O/D traffic combined with connectivity of those in MP or with a corporate account for which a routing via SFO makes sense (places without the ability to fly one stop via NRT or similar and where routing via SFO does not result in a longer flight), but absent substantial premium feed from NYC and LA, I don't see how they can run it 2x/day, particularly with SQ taking a good part of the O/D traffic.

764toHI

Why are so many here assuming a typical NYC-SIN traveler will fly EWR-SFO-SIN? I strongly believe the average traveler will fly NYC-TYO-SIN given the shorter routing and flight timing. In my travels to SIN, I always book either EWR-NRT-SIN or JFK-HND-SIN depending on whether I want to arrive in the evening or the morning. I understand the last leg will be on ANA and therefore not count towards lifetime/GS qualification but again, we are talking about the average traveler.

The fact that UA78/79 was the first TPAC ex-EWR to get upgauged to a 77W would suggest this is the case.

spin88

When I have looked, UA was pushing routings (via fares) via LAX and SFO in large part, with LAX being the cheaper option. A lot of travelers who are not familiar with transiting NRT (or HKG) and how easy it is, prefer a US connection where possible and prefer to stay on one carrier. I think the persepctive on this board that a plane change in NRT or HKG is better than anyplace in the US is probably not what a lot of travelers, who travel less, think.g

What I don't know is how UA's corporate discounts deal with the JV. When UA is offering 40+% off the rack rate, does the JV leg take the same haircut as well? If not, travel portals may push towards the SFO routing (and before that to the LAX routing).

jsloan

Oh, for heaven's sake, of course you do. The discount is on the fare. That itinerary isn't going to be priced point-to-point.

Very few EWR-based travelers are taking SFO-SIN. BOS travelers are probably going via FRA. The EWR-SIN flight has very little to do with UA's loads on SFO-SIN. The 2x SFO service will either succeed or fail on its own merits and in competition with SQ's California flights, not the EWR flight.

764toHI

When I book it's typically cheaper to book via NRT (sometimes the HND routing gets messy) by a couple of dollars... likely from airport fees/taxes. Seems like cost is a YMMV situation but I would think theoretically they should price out the same all else equal given the JV.

I also qualified my comment on the average NYC-SIN traveler which I think is sophisticated enough to understand the various idiosyncrasies of each transit hub. I suppose a typical infrequent traveler would stick with an all-UA routing, but how much of those travelers are flying NYC-SIN with some sort of regularity? I don't think John and Jane Smith from Tennessee are thinking about booking their next vacation to Singapore. I also think those passengers would probably fly a mainland China carrier if budget conscious or BR/CX/SQ if they have more disposable income.

fumje

I'll just share that I know several in-/semi-frequent flyers who book whatever expedia offers as cheapest. They have no qualms about connecting in Baku or who knows where else.

But, as applies to the union official, let's not use anecdote to define a trend.

Kacee

It's certainly much better hard product for both segments. 77W and NH 789 vs. UA's underwhelming ps and the 2-2-2 789.

uastarflyer

jsloan

No. There's a definite narrative here that UA can't support SFO-SIN x2 because SQ is going to take away east-coast passengers with their EWR-SIN service, and that if it weren't for EWR-SIN, those passengers would be taking UA via SFO.

There's a competing point of view that says that UA never expected anyone to take EWR-SFO-SIN in the first place, so the EWR-SIN flight will not affect SFO-SIN x2.

You really can't argue that EWR-SIN affects SFO-SIN if you agree that passengers on the east coast weren't likely to fly via SFO anyway.

Kacee

Well not credibly at least.