Originally posted by demue
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
End of the nonstops to LAX & EWR on the A345
Collapse
X
-
Haven't seen any of the 345s in a while. The ex-BI leased 772ER is still parked up north of NC.Originally posted by MAN Flyer View PostAccording to an article I read this week, I can't remember where, SQ's fuel use is down 3% on the back of dropping the SIN-EWR flights.
It said two have been sold and three are parked up somewhere, are those three still at Changi ?.
Comment
-
-
-
-
Not quite.... Most commercial airlines pay for fuel consumed based on prices relating to the Platts average which is most relevant to the point of uplift. These prices are usually averaged over the prior week's or month's daily levels, depending on the contract. So for operational fuel, SQ will have been benefiting from the fall on a rateable basis as it happened (with some lag).Originally posted by FN-GM View PostAirlines usually agree a fixed price for fuel for a fixed period (fuel hedging). There is a good chance SQ are paying the higher price before the dip in oil prices anyway.
Separately, airlines (and shipping companies BTW) will take out compensatory derivative options (in simple terms "hedges") in order (in theory) to smooth out their effective fuel price fluctuations. These would typically be staggered over various periods of time, and will involve buy and sell contracts to allow optimum flexibility to react to actual conditions.
The net effect will ultimately depend on the smartness of their traders and their risk policies. As for route planning, I assume they will have a long-term view of fuel markets (or will use advisers) and will plan accordingly.
Suffice to say that fundamentals still point to higher levels over time, but the industry has always been subject to long and short-term boom/bust cycles. Also bear in mind that final fuel price is dependent on refinery infrastructure and constraints - crude price alone is not the only determinant.
Comment
-
This is exactly right. This is also the reason why you don't see the fuel surcharges going down despite the drastic drop in global oil prices.Originally posted by FN-GM View PostAirlines usually agree a fixed price for fuel for a fixed period (fuel hedging). There is a good chance SQ are paying the higher price before the dip in oil prices anyway.
Comment
-
Refer to my previous post....Originally posted by SQ22 View PostThis is exactly right. This is also the reason why you don't see the fuel surcharges going down despite the drastic drop in global oil prices.
I should add that, like any sensible company, they will maximise the benefits provided by favourable fluctuations as long as possible, if customers will pay. Shareholders would expect nothing less.
Comment
-
Originally posted by yflyer View PostOil just dipped under USD50 a barrel.
Any chance of SQ restarting non-stop SIN-LAX, SIN-EWR? How about starting up SIN-SFO?


I can think of other reasons that would trump this.Originally posted by SQ22 View PostThis is exactly right. This is also the reason why you don't see the fuel surcharges going down despite the drastic drop in global oil prices.HUGE AL
Comment
-
No I don't have a crystal ball, and I'm not expecting SQ to restart this any time soon, but I do hope that some time in the future, it does become profitable to fly ultra long haul using the new generation of long range twins coming up from Boeing/Airbus, whether through advances in efficiency, or in the unlikely event that the current oil price dip is not a one-off...Originally posted by HUGE AL View Post


I have very fond memories of an 18 hour SIN-EWR in Executive Y in 2006. As a passenger, I would not fly this sector in regular Y, but I would not mind paying a Premium Y fare for this ULH flight.
I am still hoping that the number crunchers can find a way for this to work in my lifetime.
Comment
Comment