What is happening with SQ27/28 in Jan/Feb

[MAN Flyer]

Yet they cannot even find a spare 772ER to maintain daily service for SQ27/28.

Everybody wants those 772ER's I'm afraid.

MAN just went from 5 x weekly to daily and have aasked for another 2 or 3 flights a week. Apparently CPH want to go daily, and AMS, FCO and ATH want additional flights.

MAN did well to get the additional twice weekly flights as the route comes under pressure with the high oil price due to the distance, it being the longest nonstop 772ER route.

[TerryK]

Everybody wants those 772ER's I'm afraid......

What's troubling to me is the capacity cut.

SQ27/28 has been a daily service for many years (it was numbered SQ5/6 prior to 2001). SQ took a 77W away from SQ27/28 without replacing it with 772ER. In fact, this is the only recent SQ capacity reduction in any longhaul market I can think of. This may become self-fulfilling as reduced frequency lead to reduced yield which, in turns, lead to more reductions. F/C flyer may move to other carriers with better frequency, or have no choice but to fly with others as SQ isn't convenient anymore. BR, CI, MH all have more frequency and lower F/C fares than SQ on this route now. I love SQ, but we may not see SQ on this route in a few years.

[StarG]

SQ27/28 has been a daily service for many years (it was numbered SQ5/6 prior to 2001). SQ took a 77W away from SQ27/28 without replacing it with 772ER. In fact, this is the only recent SQ capacity reduction in any longhaul market I can think of. This may become self-fulfilling as reduced frequency lead to reduced yield which, in turns, lead to more reductions. F/C flyer may move to other carriers with better frequency, or have no choice but to fly with others as SQ isn't convenient anymore. BR, CI, MH all have more frequency and lower F/C fares than SQ on this route now. I love SQ, but we may not see SQ on this route in a few years.

I am just hoping that the non-stops are going to stay. Otherwise, it will be very hard to get a seat on LAX flights.

[ycp81]

With SQ's delivery of A330s, they may be able to free up some of the de-rated 777s (SQ* and SR* versions) and re-configure them for long haul flights?

[Doraemon]

What's troubling to me is the capacity cut.

SQ27/28 has been a daily service for many years (it was numbered SQ5/6 prior to 2001). SQ took a 77W away from SQ27/28 without replacing it with 772ER. In fact, this is the only recent SQ capacity reduction in any longhaul market I can think of. This may become self-fulfilling as reduced frequency lead to reduced yield which, in turns, lead to more reductions. F/C flyer may move to other carriers with better frequency, or have no choice but to fly with others as SQ isn't convenient anymore. BR, CI, MH all have more frequency and lower F/C fares than SQ on this route now. I love SQ, but we may not see SQ on this route in a few years.

SQ's TPE-LAX F/C fares are already the most expensive among CI, BR & MH, but yet they are substantially less than SIN-LAX (non-stop and 1-stop) fares. It is cheaper to operate 772ER than 77W for a low-yield route. Since the yield is low, it makes more commercial sense to send the 77W to higher yields destinations, and hence the daily MXP/BCN and soon 2nd daily ZRH.

[Doraemon]

With SQ's delivery of A330s, they may be able to free up some of the de-rated 777s (SQ* and SR* versions) and re-configure them for long haul flights?

Reconfiguring SQ* and SR* versions for long haul flights require installation of crew bunks, otherwise SQ will have to block revenue seats to satisfy crew rest requirement. The oldest SQ* bird is already 10 years old now (12 years old by the time A330 arrives), chances of reconfiguration would be rather slim.

[taipeiflyer]

SQ's TPE-LAX F/C fares are already the most expensive among CI, BR & MH, but yet they are substantially less than SIN-LAX (non-stop and 1-stop) fares. It is cheaper to operate 772ER than 77W for a low-yield route. Since the yield is low, it makes more commercial sense to send the 77W to higher yields destinations, and hence the daily MXP/BCN and soon 2nd daily ZRH.

low yield or not, it is very, very, very bad service to yank an existing plane from an existing route and deploy it elsewhere without any advance notice and without any substitute. zurich is a high-yield route, but singapore air is pushing away customers in order to make more money in the short-term. it is well-known that it is easier to keep one customer than it is to attract 10 new customers. SQ has already lost its best taiwan-based customer over the past 15 months... i wonder how many else will follow me.

[RJA]

This is quite surprising to see TPE/LAX go from a planned daily 77W to 4pw 77E, worse off than before!

SQ did similar things with their New Zealand services last year due to the aircraft shortages first cutting frequencies on AKL and CHC and then almost pulling the 744 off AKL altogether!

I wonder though, how are the yields/profitability of the LAX non-stop service? Maybe SQ are making sacrifices on TPE/LAX to enhance the yield/profitability of the non-stop service?

Or perhaps with the 345s going to an all-new J config soon perhaps SQ expects the vast majority of the biz travellers between LA/Southwestern USA and SIN/ASEAN/India to take the non-stop service leaving lower-yielding and leisure travellers for the TPE/LAX service where the 77E may be a more adequate choice of equipment. Any thoughts?

Everybody wants those 772ER's I'm afraid.

MAN just went from 5 x weekly to daily and have aasked for another 2 or 3 flights a week. Apparently CPH want to go daily, and AMS, FCO and ATH want additional flights.

Both AKL and CHC have also recently received additional weekly flights with the type.

[milehighj]

low yield or not, it is very, very, very bad service to yank an existing plane from an existing route and deploy it elsewhere without any advance notice and without any substitute.

[sarcasm mode]
Well it was only a matter of time before the ultra-short-term P&L culture of current SQ management thinking spread from cost-centres like PPS Club and HR to revenue-centres like schedule planning and yield management...
[/sarcasm mode]

[Sqstalker]

SQ has already lost its best taiwan-based customer over the past 15 months... i wonder how many else will follow me.

Just my 2 cents:

SQ has lost more than it's fair share of TPE based FCL pax eversince 744 has been pulled out from this station. It's been more than 6 years already with due respect to taipeiflyer .

This year, the 77Ws is a luxury that SQ could afford to slot back into this tiny market (but at lowest priority). So once other stations gets the green light for additional flights....it's bye bye TPE (yet again )

It's all about the money

And....NO...I bet my bottom dollar that SQ will never deploy a 744 to TPE ever again.


Let's hope more new planes arrive pronto!

[vincent0720]

Ha maybe we think too much.
Hope good news will arrive later.
772ER is still fine with me since they don't pull TPE-LAX service away.
Or I have to think other airlines to fly from TPE to USA. (JAL? )

[Singapore_Air]

It's not showing B772 or EQV anymore:

[KVS Availability Tool 3.0.0/Platinum - Amadeus: Timetable/DE-AONL6]

SIN  Singapore Changi SG [WSSS]
LAX  Los Angeles Int'l CA US [KLAX]
MON  07 Apr 2008 - 14 Apr 2008
Carrier   Flight From Depart    To   Arrive    A/C  St   Frequency | Dur'n | Dep T | Arr T | Effect | Ending | Exceptions
--------- ------ ---- --------- ---- --------- ---- ---- ---------------------------------------------------------------- 
SQ        38     SIN  16:15     LAX  17:35     345  0    1234567     16:20       3       B
SQ        12     SIN  09:45     LAX  12:50     744  1    1234567     18:05       3       B   30 Mar   30 Jun
SQ        28     SIN  17:05     LAX  20:20     77W  1    -23-5-7     18:15       3       B

[TerryK]

Adding insult to injury, SQ has quietly hiked TPE-LAX C fare by around $600 as of 07-Jan-08. Passengers need to pay $600 extra to fly in 772ER instead of 77W, and the flight is not even a daily flight.

[zvezda]

Reconfiguring SQ* and SR* versions for long haul flights require installation of crew bunks, otherwise SQ will have to block revenue seats to satisfy crew rest requirement. The oldest SQ* bird is already 10 years old now (12 years old by the time A330 arrives), chances of reconfiguration would be rather slim.

Clearly, the oldest 9V-SQ* and 9V-SR* will not be reconfigured for long-haul. However, the newest might be. If they are not, then SQ would have quite a shift from long-haul to regional as the A330s join the fleet.

[vincent0720]

Adding insult to injury, SQ has quietly hiked TPE-LAX C fare by around $600 as of 07-Jan-08. Passengers need to pay $600 extra to fly in 772ER instead of 77W, and the flight is not even a daily flight.

$600USD extra? ( that's a lot for getting a 772ER J class! )