Singapore Airlines Benefits From Newly Signed UK-SIN Open Skies Agreement

[flyguy]

altho SIA will benefit from the UK-S'pore Open Skies agreement - however the main thing is the availability of landing/departure slot out of esp LHR; and another barrier is the 5th freedom air traffic rights between US and S'pore via LHR. The use of slots to "deny" a an airline is one of the most powerful barrier as in fact seen many years ago with Narita (TYO) which uses the "single runway" and no slots availability for foreign airlines. Hence having a Open Skies is only just an agreement but does not even guarantee a flight into a country in essence. On S'pore-US Open skies, believed that since it was cocluded a couple of yrs ago - it strictly meant "direct non-stop" flights from SIN to US and hence SQ can actually start any number of direct non-stop services. It excludes any stop-over in a 3rd country ie Japan, China or any other Asian airports - as this meant S'pore/SQ have to negotiate with another country separately and US have no rights in these matters.
Hence even with this UK-SIN Open agreement, it will take a few and many more years before SQ can truly commence any new flights out of or use LHR as its hub for its transpacific or european operations.

[Singapore_Air]

Singapore Airlines, and airlines of the Republic of Singapore, has had the rights from the United States to operate United Kingdom -> United States vv. flights for many years now.

[MAN Flyer]

Hence even with this UK-SIN Open agreement, it will take a few and many more years before SQ can truly commence any new flights out of or use LHR as its hub for its transpacific or european operations.

I can't see SQ ever starting transpacific flight from LHR. It's would be far too much trouble.

[flyguy]

Singapore Airlines, and airlines of the Republic of Singapore, has had the rights from the United States to operate United Kingdom -> United States vv. flights for many years now.

not sure if u r right - but if SQ and any other local SIN airlines have the right, its a wonder why SQ didnt operate any trans Atlantic flights between US n UK for that many years as it "had the rights"? And SQ 49% stake into virgin atlantic is so that it can access the UK-US routes.
The current US -S'pore Open Skies is for SQ or any sin airlines to operate direct non-stop service from SIN to US and vv.

[huaiwei]

not sure if u r right - but if SQ and any other local SIN airlines have the right, its a wonder why SQ didnt operate any trans Atlantic flights between US n UK for that many years as it "had the rights"? And SQ 49% stake into virgin atlantic is so that it can access the UK-US routes.
The current US -S'pore Open Skies is for SQ or any sin airlines to operate direct non-stop service from SIN to US and vv.

No I don't think this is quite correct. Check out the original agreement document at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/63817.pdf, clearly allowing for Singapore-based airlines to fly unrestricted to the United States via an intermediate or stop-over point, and onwards to another destination, provided they originate from Singapore (see page 3). SIA cannot fly UK-US routes until now because the UK has not granted SIA similar rights to fly beyond the UK to any destination.

The issue I was bringing up earlier, is what happens if SIA flies a non-Singapore originating flight from the UK to the US. The US agreement did not allow for this, while the UK one does, so I was reconing that the hubbing rights given to Singapore may not be exercised for some time.

[aerosmith]

Finally SIA has the rights to LHR/JFK vv. lucrative sectors..[/URL][/B]

LHR/LAX and LHR/SFO a'int that bad too...

If that day comes, more options to plan a SQ ONLY RTW ! (hopefully without those nonsense US$500 surcharges)

[flyguy]

its still not precise as to the US Open Skies agreement with SIN that may allow a stop (technical stop?) from a 3rd country - as its fairly vague. The question of 5th freedom rights ie to pick up n drop pax through a 3rd country like LHR is not stated. Hence it would be a few more years before any LHR to US by SQ can be realised. However, this UK-SIN Open Skies can also mean some very real competition with SQ on the LHR-Australasia Kangaroo routes n vv as then now BA and Qantas can launch as many services as they wanted through SIN without any issues of slots avail at Changi. And BA have a fairly sizeable stake in Qantas too.

[zvezda]

The issue I was bringing up earlier, is what happens if SIA flies a non-Singapore originating flight from the UK to the US. The US agreement did not allow for this, while the UK one does, so I was reconing that the hubbing rights given to Singapore may not be exercised for some time.

That point is theoretical. Why would SQ launch service to the States from LHR without using the same flight number as a service to LHR from SIN? Note that there is no requirement that the same aircraft type be used or that there be sane connections.

SQ could, for example, fly a 777-200ER rotation SIN-DXB-LHR-SFO-LHR-JFK-LHR-LAX-LHR-DXB-SIN with the LHR-SFO, LHR-JFK, and LHR-LAX flights numbered SQ318, SQ320, and SQ322. That would be permitted both by the US and UK OSAs.

The question I have is what about the EU court ruling that the occupied territories of the EU (formerly nations) couldn't negotiate their own OSAs, that only the EU could negotiate aviation agreements?

[milehighj]

That point is theoretical. Why would SQ launch service to the States from LHR without using the same flight number as a service to LHR from SIN? Note that there is no requirement that the same aircraft type be used or that there be sane connections.

SQ could, for example, fly a 777-200ER rotation SIN-DXB-LHR-SFO-LHR-JFK-LHR-LAX-LHR-DXB-SIN with the LHR-SFO, LHR-JFK, and LHR-LAX flights numbered SQ318, SQ320, and SQ322. That would be permitted both by the US and UK OSAs.

The question I have is what about the EU court ruling that the occupied territories of the EU (formerly nations) couldn't negotiate their own OSAs, that only the EU could negotiate aviation agreements?

I see your point. But from a operational angle, they may want to time multiple US depatures following the arrival of one flight, say SQ322, rather than at different times.

[huaiwei]

That point is theoretical. Why would SQ launch service to the States from LHR without using the same flight number as a service to LHR from SIN? Note that there is no requirement that the same aircraft type be used or that there be sane connections.

SQ could, for example, fly a 777-200ER rotation SIN-DXB-LHR-SFO-LHR-JFK-LHR-LAX-LHR-DXB-SIN with the LHR-SFO, LHR-JFK, and LHR-LAX flights numbered SQ318, SQ320, and SQ322. That would be permitted both by the US and UK OSAs.

I think milehighj has voiced out my concern. In the current situation with three flights a day from Singapore to London, SQ can only fly up to 21 flights a week from London to the US, unless the number of SIN-LHR flights increases. Now add to this the problem of limited slots in LHR. For SQ to mount a flight from LHR to another destination where it has only fifth freedom rights, it needs to buy two slots per flight. Destinations with seventh freedom rights would require just one slot purchase. I believe these will post some limitations to SQ's LHR hubbing aspirations, not just in theory, especially if SQ is looking at maximing frequency to corner those markets.

[MAN Flyer]

However, this UK-SIN Open Skies can also mean some very real competition with SQ on the LHR-Australasia Kangaroo routes n vv as then now BA and Qantas can launch as many services as they wanted through SIN without any issues of slots avail at Changi. And BA have a fairly sizeable stake in Qantas too.

It won't make much difference to the Kangaroo Route as BA and QF already had as many flights as they wanted on that, as Singapore allowed Fifth Freedoms from Changi.

It's across the pond from LHR where it will eventually make a difference, as long as they think it worth paying the going rate for the slots.

[zvezda]

I see your point. But from a operational angle, they may want to time multiple US depatures following the arrival of one flight, say SQ322, rather than at different times.

Nothing stops SQ from doing so.

In the current situation with three flights a day from Singapore to London, SQ can only fly up to 21 flights a week from London to the US, unless the number of SIN-LHR flights increases.

That's an increase of 21 flights per week from the present. I rather doubt that SQ would like to fly more than that across the Atlantic from LHR -- especially since they cannot fly to YYZ.

Don't forget that SQ have a capacity shortage due to the WhaleJet fiasco that will continue for a few years. Despite having ordered 68 new aircraft this year and last year, SQ will still need to order another 20 or so aircraft by the end of next year for delivery 2013 to 2015. The capacity shortage will limit transatlantic flights for a while.

[huaiwei]

It won't make much difference to the Kangaroo Route as BA and QF already had as many flights as they wanted on that, as Singapore allowed Fifth Freedoms from Changi.

It's across the pond from LHR where it will eventually make a difference, as long as they think it worth paying the going rate for the slots.

Yeap. This new agreement involved Singapore and UK-registered airlines only, and the primary additional benefit to UK-based airlines is their ability to establish hubs in Singapore and fly from Singapore to anywhere else.

Somehow, I am a tad surprised by this deal because the benefits to UK seems relatively limited. Unless British-based airlines have some interesting plans out of Singapore which they only whispered to the British government?

[huaiwei]

Nothing stops SQ from doing so.

Er not really. The current OSA with the US will prevent any additional flight which is not a connecting flight onwards to Singapore. If SQ extends all 21 flights into NYC today, they wont be able to fly any additional UK-US flights tomorrow.

That's an increase of 21 flights per week from the present. I rather doubt that SQ would like to fly more than that across the Atlantic from LHR -- especially since they cannot fly to YYZ.

Don't forget that SQ have a capacity shortage due to the WhaleJet fiasco that will continue for a few years. Despite having ordered 68 new aircraft this year and last year, SQ will still need to order another 20 or so aircraft by the end of next year for delivery 2013 to 2015. The capacity shortage will limit transatlantic flights for a while.

Lets put aside SQ's current capacity shortage situation for now, so that we can discuss on aviation rights for the time being. Of course most of us will now SQ can't exactly expand much at present in a rather "happy but unfortunate" situartion...demand far outstripping supply!

Hmm....yes there is an additional 21 flights per week over the Atlantic, but that's it for the UK-US market. I would think a minimum of 7 flights per week is crucial for it to make an impact in any such routing, so that gives it a maximum of three destinations. Not much, really, if SQ is aspring to establish a UK hub. Canadian destinations are another issue altogether, given the lack of a liberal aviation agreement with them at present. SQ even has problems expanding its Vancouver operations despite roaring sales, IIRC.

[zvezda]

I am a tad surprised by this deal because the benefits to UK seems relatively limited. Unless British-based airlines have some interesting plans out of Singapore which they only whispered to the British government?

The point is not to benefit the airlines. The point is to benefit the people of both countries. The people will benefit from increased competition whether the airlines do or not.

The current OSA with the US will prevent any additional flight which is not a connecting flight onwards to Singapore.

The only thing that determines whether or not a flight is a connecting flight is whether or not it has the same flight number.

If SQ extends all 21 flights into NYC today, they wont be able to fly any additional UK-US flights tomorrow.

The idea of SQ flying more than once daily LHR-JFK is implausible.

Hmm....yes there is an additional 21 flights per week over the Atlantic, but that's it for the UK-US market. I would think a minimum of 7 flights per week is crucial for it to make an impact in any such routing, so that gives it a maximum of three destinations. Not much, really, if SQ is aspring to establish a UK hub. Canadian destinations are another issue altogether, given the lack of a liberal aviation agreement with them at present. SQ even has problems expanding its Vancouver operations despite roaring sales, IIRC.

There is no Canada-Singapore aviation bilateral -- liberal or otherwise. Canada abrogated the last one.