SQ to Israel?

[CarbonMan]

I think SQ could find less complicated destinations to service. DUS, ARN, CBR, WLG were all previous codeshare destinations. At present they don't even offer TLV as a codeshare, so...

SIN 2355-0645+1 FRA 1005+1-1515+1 TLV on LH686 D
SIN 0025-0655 MUC 1140-1625 TLV on LH688 x35
SIN 0130-0750 ZRH 0945-1440 TLV on LX254 D

TLV 0520-0840 ZRH 1035-0600+1 SIN on LX257 D
TLV 0520-0900 FRA 1140-0650+1 SIN on LH691 D
TLV 0700-1010 MUC 1220-0700+1 SIN on LH681 x237
TLV 1620-2000 FRA 2155-1715+1 SIN on LH687 D

Seeing that they would fly right over Bangkok with the circuitous routing, it might make sense just to codeshare w El Al, especially with the political factors in play. Looking at the flight map, I do wonder what would have happend in the event of a go-around, or if the winds necessitated landing in the opposite direction on 20C/R?

Indeed an alternative *A option would be to codeshare with TK via IST. In terms of backtracking, this may be better than ZRH, MUC and FRA.

[aviwil]

Well , great work , people .
I think , whoever is in charge around here , needs to notify SQ Management , that SQTalk heavies have weighed in , and reached their decision on this .
Looking at the posts on this , it's quite obvious that members commenting , are highly trained professionals , with obviously many years experience in the higher echelons of aviation planning , and not just a group of amateurs sounding off on topics they hardly have a clue of . Probably also self-evident that SQ Planning Dept has become more or less redundant - SQTalk will be handling things from now on .
Post have mentioned all sorts of reasons like security , lack of market , route problems , wind , geo-strategic considerations , complicated destination , and more . I do get the distinct impression from the posts , that some want to torpedo the SQ TLV route . I would have thought , around here , the exact opposite would be the case . I mean SQTalk is like an Aviation enthusiast forum - right ? No politics , hatred etc. here . Great . So can someone explain , why anyone would want to prevent the SQ TLV route from going ahead ?

[SQ228]

Well , great work , people .
I think , whoever is in charge around here , needs to notify SQ Management , that SQTalk heavies have weighed in , and reached their decision on this .
Looking at the posts on this , it's quite obvious that members commenting , are highly trained professionals , with obviously many years experience in the higher echelons of aviation planning , and not just a group of amateurs sounding off on topics they hardly have a clue of . Probably also self-evident that SQ Planning Dept has become more or less redundant - SQTalk will be handling things from now on .
Post have mentioned all sorts of reasons like security , lack of market , route problems , wind , geo-strategic considerations , complicated destination , and more . I do get the distinct impression from the posts , that some want to torpedo the SQ TLV route . I would have thought , around here , the exact opposite would be the case . I mean SQTalk is like an Aviation enthusiast forum - right ? No politics , hatred etc. here . Great . So can someone explain , why anyone would want to prevent the SQ TLV route from going ahead ?

We like discussing practicalities, logistics, likelihoods and past happenings and making educated guesses based on robust discussion. The first person to mention politics and hatred has been you. If you are implying that any member of this forum is suggesting that a certain route is unlikely to proceed based on political motivations or "hatred" of any kind, I find that quite inappropriate.

You are complaining that people are discussing the idea of a route between SIN and TLV purely on cold, hard objective facts and then in the same paragraph you suggest that our motives are subjective and emotional based on politics. You also imply that our love of aviation should be so subjective that we should want to love the idea of this route without considering any factual information. Both lines of argument contradict themselves.

I would also point that you are implying that other people posting on this forum have no idea about what they are discussing. Having had the pleasure of meeting many of these intelligent people and being aware of their vast collective expertise and industry knowledge, I can tell you that you are wrong. Since you have such sarcastic comments about other people's expertise, perhaps you'd care to inform us what your actual industry credentials are?

[aviwil]

SQ228 - with all due respect to you , as I see you're system administrator - you appear offended - sorry if so . But , you're not addresing the points I made or answered them .
As for points made in posts against this route , I certainly don't see them as hard , objective facts e.g. .geo-strategic considerations , complicated destination . etc.
Educated guesses ? Read posts carefully - I don't think you'll see that . e.g It was always unlikely anyway. , problem solved! , Matter finalised! , this issue might just become a political red herring for the govt to utilise. , etc.
As for my credentials - sorry , but no .

[SQ228]

Indeed an alternative *A option would be to codeshare with TK via IST. In terms of backtracking, this may be better than ZRH, MUC and FRA.

Definitely better in terms of kilometres, but the situation in Turkey is deteriorating further. At one point it looked like IST would go daily A350 and connect to a vast range of destinations with TK, but since the attack on the airport and the coup, the prognosis isn't so healthy and it dropped to 3x weekly. They have scheduled 5x weekly from the NS17 changeover, so hopefully it keeps up.

Based on the current timetable, the connections would be:

SIN 0145-0745 IST 1020-1135 TLV on TK794 135

TLV 0850-1220 IST 1425-0545+1 SIN on TK865 135

Shaves 2 or 3 hours off but with less frequency. I guess my mind was also on filling their MUC flight now it's been decoupled from MAN.

[Pinkfloyd]

Well , great work , people .
I think , whoever is in charge around here , needs to notify SQ Management , that SQTalk heavies have weighed in , and reached their decision on this .
Looking at the posts on this , it's quite obvious that members commenting , are highly trained professionals , with obviously many years experience in the higher echelons of aviation planning , and not just a group of amateurs sounding off on topics they hardly have a clue of . Probably also self-evident that SQ Planning Dept has become more or less redundant - SQTalk will be handling things from now on .
Post have mentioned all sorts of reasons like security , lack of market , route problems , wind , geo-strategic considerations , complicated destination , and more . I do get the distinct impression from the posts , that some want to torpedo the SQ TLV route . I would have thought , around here , the exact opposite would be the case . I mean SQTalk is like an Aviation enthusiast forum - right ? No politics , hatred etc. here . Great . So can someone explain , why anyone would want to prevent the SQ TLV route from going ahead ?

It's a forum, get over it..

[CarbonMan]

Well , great work , people .
I think , whoever is in charge around here , needs to notify SQ Management , that SQTalk heavies have weighed in , and reached their decision on this .
Looking at the posts on this , it's quite obvious that members commenting , are highly trained professionals , with obviously many years experience in the higher echelons of aviation planning , and not just a group of amateurs sounding off on topics they hardly have a clue of . Probably also self-evident that SQ Planning Dept has become more or less redundant - SQTalk will be handling things from now on .
Post have mentioned all sorts of reasons like security , lack of market , route problems , wind , geo-strategic considerations , complicated destination , and more . I do get the distinct impression from the posts , that some want to torpedo the SQ TLV route . I would have thought , around here , the exact opposite would be the case . I mean SQTalk is like an Aviation enthusiast forum - right ? No politics , hatred etc. here . Great . So can someone explain , why anyone would want to prevent the SQ TLV route from going ahead ?

I'm disappointed by your nonsensical posting Aviwil.

You have flippantly implied that somehow our posts here has managed to influence or decided that there should be no flights between TLV-SIN. I wish we had the powers to sway such things. If SQ can financially justify this route, and it was possible despite the diplomatic issues, it would happen no matter what "torpedoes" we launch from our keyboards here.

There're lots of OCDs but no hatred here. It's a discussion forum. The only one emotionally ranting away is you.

As to your question on why anyone would want to prevent flights between SIN and TLV, all you need to see are the two maps showing Netanyahu's flights between TLV-SIN and SIN-SYD. You've got to be absolutely blind not to see it. And if you are not, then I've nothing positive left to say.

[jammed]

actually, there is quite a substantial number of people flying to Israel from SIN. Those who know, this needs no elaboration. And this is apart from the increasing number of tourists drawn to the Holy Land for religious reasons - this numbered into the tens of thousands every year, apparently.

'Politics' is not right word to describe the difficulty; 'geo-politics' is. Netanyahu's flightmap illustrates amply, as those who have referenced that has pointed out - can I congratulate CarbonMan for pulling that out. That is also the reason why Singapore requested the visit to be low-profile.

I'm not close to SQ management by 1,000 miles. But simple cost-benefit analysis - does the pax revenue balance with the extra fuel costs just to stay within the SIN and friendly FIR?

SQ, if not most reasonable airlines, will do its calculations on plain $ and cents, I imagine.

[FN-GM]

We like discussing practicalities, logistics, likelihoods and past happenings and making educated guesses based on robust discussion. The first person to mention politics and hatred has been you. If you are implying that any member of this forum is suggesting that a certain route is unlikely to proceed based on political motivations or "hatred" of any kind, I find that quite inappropriate.

You are complaining that people are discussing the idea of a route between SIN and TLV purely on cold, hard objective facts and then in the same paragraph you suggest that our motives are subjective and emotional based on politics. You also imply that our love of aviation should be so subjective that we should want to love the idea of this route without considering any factual information. Both lines of argument contradict themselves.

I would also point that you are implying that other people posting on this forum have no idea about what they are discussing. Having had the pleasure of meeting many of these intelligent people and being aware of their vast collective expertise and industry knowledge, I can tell you that you are wrong. Since you have such sarcastic comments about other people's expertise, perhaps you'd care to inform us what your actual industry credentials are?

At what point did anyone on here claim to be an expert? Everyone is just sharing their view.

[SQ025]

But simple cost-benefit analysis - does the pax revenue balance with the extra fuel costs just to stay within the SIN and friendly FIR?

I guess thats at the end the key question.

Looking at the geo-political landscape, the complex routing of such flight, the additional security measures @Changi, I imagine that TLV is not likely to happen.

But we will see.

[thelongroad]

QF now has a codeshare with El Al. I'd say that would be the nail in the coffin of SQ considering serving Israel, I suspect Kangaroo travel would have made up a substantial part of the market.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busi...edb42a6f429a86

[Metropolitan Airlines]

I guess thats at the end the key question.

Looking at the geo-political landscape, the complex routing of such flight, the additional security measures @Changi, I imagine that TLV is not likely to happen.

But we will see.

But I wonder does Singapore Airlines really want to fall behind Cathay Pacific in terms of their network coverage? If CX's TLV is so full that they can justify daily A350, I think SQ will lure a lot of CX passengers across if they launch TLV, as SQ has more flights to AUS and NZ thus provides better connection on the Kangaroo route to TLV.

[ZRHKKSR]

It seems the wheels are in motion. SQ submitted the request for landing at Ben Gurion airport starting from next summer. Not sure if it means 2017 or 18.
https://www.touristisrael.com/singap...el-aviv/19522/

TLV a growing destinations It became Easyjet’s one of major hub with daily services to more then 12 destinations. Its rival Ryanair is not far behind. http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/1.769099

For many years Asian airlines have been holding back but now slowly realising the potential It has been profitable for KE, Later this year HU after only 1 year of BJN-TLV will add PVG –TLV direct flights. It’s subsidiary HK Airlines is also said to start HKG-TLV. CX’s HKG TLV uptake has been well above expatiation now talking of increasing to daily flights. AI will start DEL-TLV later this year, NH is in talks for HND-TLV direct flight. Last but not least CZ will commence CAN –TLV later this year.

About geopolitics. Malaysia wouldn’t allow use of it’s airspace. Indonesia does maintain a low profile trade and tourism with Israel, Unlike Malaysia its citizens are not prosecuted for travelling to Israel, There’s a chance Indonesia will allow use of it’s side of the malacca straits into the Indian ocean. The current available path is head north and turn west at Igari using Thai airspace into the Indian Ocean, not much of a D tour compare with CX675

[Spaniard]

CX to Israel already operating - strong demand and increase in originally planned frequencies to 5x weekly.

https://www.businesstraveller.com/ai...ses-frequency/

[SQ025]

CX has China in their backyard. Chinese companies are doing quite some business in Israel and with limited connections from China, I believe that CX can tap from that demand.

For SQ it will be more challenging to make that route work.