Nov 14, 2019, 11:02 pm
UA Ending LAX-SIN, going 2x daily SFO-SIN, 27 OCT 2018
Oct 16, 2018, 4:13 pm
#316
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,155
I agree with this. Which is to the broader point that UNITED offers lesser services to a key business center than prior to the axe of HKG-SIN.
Oct 16, 2018, 6:49 pm
#317
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: NYC
Programs: Marriott Platinum Elite, National Executive, United Gold
Posts: 1,181
Partly agree that HKG-SIN was a nice flight, but I would argue that UA now offers superior service to a key business center (SIN) given:
- 2x nonstop service from their TPAC gateway
- superior soft product via their JV partner for 1/3 of the journey coming from the East Coast (or 100% of the journey depending on TPAC routing)
- and in combination, a greater set of offerings to passengers
- 2x nonstop service from their TPAC gateway
- superior soft product via their JV partner for 1/3 of the journey coming from the East Coast (or 100% of the journey depending on TPAC routing)
- and in combination, a greater set of offerings to passengers
Oct 16, 2018, 8:29 pm
#318
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Portland OR
Programs: United 1K 1MM, Marriott Bonvoy Platinum, Hilton HHonors Gold
Posts: 560
When I booked UA29 for mid-November the alternative (slightly cheaper) was via NRT. The early NH was 788 and the later (arriving past midnight) was 77W. No way was I going to suffer the 788 barcaloungers after 10 hours on Polaris, so the choice was an 8.15pm arrival on a 2-2-2 UA Dreamliner or 12.30am on NH. I decided to arrive earlier and sample an ultra long haul flight (it’s still the eighth longest).
Oct 16, 2018, 10:39 pm
#319
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EWR, PHL
Programs: UA1k 3MM, AA Plt, peasant on everybody else, elite something or other at a bunch of hotels.
Posts: 4,637
"So when the airline announced the re-inauguration, he switched his ticket from United flights through San Francisco and paid about $200 more for the nonstop.
“The premium economy had plenty of room, and this saved me six or seven hours,” Mr. Esopa says. “But after 15, 14 hours, you’re kind of like, let’s get on with it.”
The article gives no clue what class he flew from SFO-SIN.
Oct 16, 2018, 11:45 pm
#320
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,416
My read on this is that he flew in premium economy on the new non-stop, not business:
"So when the airline announced the re-inauguration, he switched his ticket from United flights through San Francisco and paid about $200 more for the nonstop.
“The premium economy had plenty of room, and this saved me six or seven hours,” Mr. Esopa says. “But after 15, 14 hours, you’re kind of like, let’s get on with it.”
"So when the airline announced the re-inauguration, he switched his ticket from United flights through San Francisco and paid about $200 more for the nonstop.
“The premium economy had plenty of room, and this saved me six or seven hours,” Mr. Esopa says. “But after 15, 14 hours, you’re kind of like, let’s get on with it.”
Oct 17, 2018, 12:07 am
#321
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2003
Programs: UA*Lifetime GS, Hyatt* Lifetime Globalist
Posts: 12,317
I anticipate both SQ and UA will cut capacity at some point unless there are additional demands. I also think we should not isolate the US-SIN traffic on just SQ and UA. I know a number executives in my firm or our clients have chosen Emirate and Qatar via the Middle East. Their fares are cheaper and also I would argue the onboard services and amenity are better than SQ. Many like me who don’t like ultra long flights. I will not pick either SQ or UA for my flights between SIN and US because 14 hours is pretty much my limit. Having done a few of them, I have decided to go one stop via NRT/China or Europe.
SQ and UA are the airlines I have flown the most in the past decade and I maintain PPS ans GS each year. My observation of SQ is that it is definitely cutting back on onboard amenities including caterings. SQ is facing a lot of competitions and financial results have not been good. I love flying SQ but I am disappointed with the cut backs especially the past 2 years. That A350 J seats are just simply horrible! I have five SQ flights coming up in the next two weeks and I avoid A350 on all of them.
UA also cut back on its onboard amenities and rolled back from its initial Polaris offerings. I have done five transpacific flights in September and chose not to post inflight meals photos anymore like I usually do. They are just embarrassingly bad. No UA flights for me for awhile until I have to fly them.
The benefits of frequent flying on SQ and UA (at least for me) is not really about onboard services and amenities anymore. It is mostly about scheduling for business trips, customer services during irregular operations (mostly UA not SQ). A comfortable bed for me to sleep well is another important factor, but unfortunately SQ is not good at offering a comfortable seat for sleeping except for its 787-10.
SQ and UA are the airlines I have flown the most in the past decade and I maintain PPS ans GS each year. My observation of SQ is that it is definitely cutting back on onboard amenities including caterings. SQ is facing a lot of competitions and financial results have not been good. I love flying SQ but I am disappointed with the cut backs especially the past 2 years. That A350 J seats are just simply horrible! I have five SQ flights coming up in the next two weeks and I avoid A350 on all of them.
UA also cut back on its onboard amenities and rolled back from its initial Polaris offerings. I have done five transpacific flights in September and chose not to post inflight meals photos anymore like I usually do. They are just embarrassingly bad. No UA flights for me for awhile until I have to fly them.
The benefits of frequent flying on SQ and UA (at least for me) is not really about onboard services and amenities anymore. It is mostly about scheduling for business trips, customer services during irregular operations (mostly UA not SQ). A comfortable bed for me to sleep well is another important factor, but unfortunately SQ is not good at offering a comfortable seat for sleeping except for its 787-10.
Oct 17, 2018, 12:18 am
#322
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: NYC
Programs: UA MileagePlus 2MM
Posts: 1,567
I anticipate both SQ and UA will cut capacity at some point unless there are additional demands. I also think we should not isolate the US-SIN traffic on just SQ and UA. I know a number executives in my firm or our clients have chosen Emirate and Qatar via the Middle East. Their fares are cheaper and also I would argue the onboard services and amenity are better than SQ. Many like me who don’t like ultra long flights. I will not pick either SQ or UA for my flights between SIN and US because 14 hours is pretty much my limit. Having done a few of them, I have decided to go one stop via NRT/China or Europe.
SQ and UA are the airlines I have flown the most in the past decade and I maintain PPS ans GS each year. My observation of SQ is that it is definitely cutting back on onboard amenities including caterings. SQ is facing a lot of competitions and financial results have not been good. I love flying SQ but I am disappointed with the cut backs especially the past 2 years. That A350 J seats are just simply horrible! I have five SQ flights coming up in the next two weeks and I avoid A350 on all of them.
UA also cut back on its onboard amenities and rolled back from its initial Polaris offerings. I have done five transpacific flights in September and chose not to post inflight meals photos anymore like I usually do. They are just embarrassingly bad. No UA flights for me for awhile until I have to fly them.
The benefits of frequent flying on SQ and UA (at least for me) is not really about onboard services and amenities anymore. It is mostly about scheduling for business trips, customer services during irregular operations (mostly UA not SQ). A comfortable bed for me to sleep well is another important factor, but unfortunately SQ is not good at offering a comfortable seat for sleeping except for its 787-10.
SQ and UA are the airlines I have flown the most in the past decade and I maintain PPS ans GS each year. My observation of SQ is that it is definitely cutting back on onboard amenities including caterings. SQ is facing a lot of competitions and financial results have not been good. I love flying SQ but I am disappointed with the cut backs especially the past 2 years. That A350 J seats are just simply horrible! I have five SQ flights coming up in the next two weeks and I avoid A350 on all of them.
UA also cut back on its onboard amenities and rolled back from its initial Polaris offerings. I have done five transpacific flights in September and chose not to post inflight meals photos anymore like I usually do. They are just embarrassingly bad. No UA flights for me for awhile until I have to fly them.
The benefits of frequent flying on SQ and UA (at least for me) is not really about onboard services and amenities anymore. It is mostly about scheduling for business trips, customer services during irregular operations (mostly UA not SQ). A comfortable bed for me to sleep well is another important factor, but unfortunately SQ is not good at offering a comfortable seat for sleeping except for its 787-10.
I am on UA EWR to SIN on 29OCT and I like the options of day or night time departures. I preferred the EWR-HKG-SIN routing but since it's gone I will continue to fly UA due to FFP. I hope UA can keep both SFO - SIN flights alive!
Adam
Oct 18, 2018, 12:04 am
#323
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: EWR, PHL
Programs: UA1k 3MM, AA Plt, peasant on everybody else, elite something or other at a bunch of hotels.
Posts: 4,637
Totally agree, but the poster's comment was that the traveler (may have) spent $7,200 on SQ vs. $7,000 on UA when in reality, I think the traveler chose PE on SQ rather than business on either carrier. Big difference in flight cost.
Nov 1, 2018, 6:35 am
#325
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,506
Yes. There will be a huge amount of USA/SIN premium non-stop capacity going forward and it appears SQ clearly wants to own that route. UA's response will be interesting.
Nov 1, 2018, 10:28 am
#326
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Japan
Posts: 5,577
AS to feed the outbound. Although it will be tough to make outbound connections for a flight that leaves at 10:40 in the morning. The return
arrival at 9:00 a.m. looks more promising.
Nov 1, 2018, 11:36 am
#327
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,442
It seems from the E-mail I got that SEA-NRT also offers "regular" coach not just biz and PE. Maybe they strengthen their partnership with
AS to feed the outbound. Although it will be tough to make outbound connections for a flight that leaves at 10:40 in the morning. The return
arrival at 9:00 a.m. looks more promising.
AS to feed the outbound. Although it will be tough to make outbound connections for a flight that leaves at 10:40 in the morning. The return
arrival at 9:00 a.m. looks more promising.
Nov 1, 2018, 11:51 am
#328
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: PHX
Programs: AS 75K; UA 1MM; Hyatt Globalist; Marriott LTP; Hilton Diamond (Aspire)
Posts: 56,416
I would think this is more a challenge to DL than UA. UA gave up on SEA years ago, whereas DL has built it into their primary TPAC hub. DL is dropping SIN flights, so SQ now steps into that void.
Nov 1, 2018, 12:41 pm
#329
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: New York, NY
Programs: UA, AA, DL, Hertz, Avis, National, Hyatt, Hilton, SPG, Marriott
Posts: 9,442
More likely a move from UA Y to SQ PE. If so, $200 more for a nonstop and true PE is the no-brainer of no-brainers.
Nov 1, 2018, 12:55 pm
#330
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Alaska now has a partnership with SQ, and as I keep saying SEA is approx 700 closer to Asia than is SFO. I don't think that this will impact UA in J (probably little J traffic ex-SEA to SIN, and AS is not really set up lounge wise to provide J level service ex-SEA), but it may effect Y loads. SQ will have a lower cost flight, with better routing for many folks North and East of Seattle vs a backwards connection in SFO. I do think DL's failure to go SEA-SIN is probably a strategic mistake. I have not been impressed with how they have responded to changes in the pacific markets.