Rumoured: SIA goes nonstop SIN-YYZ

[SQalMundo]

Is Singapore Airlines ever flying to Toronto again?

A few months ago I heard from this website that SIA is going to fly direct to Toronto, but when and where? There are no updates in SIA's website alone, in Wikipedia (though they said that SIA is going to fly to Mexico City, Madrid and Funchal in 2010) and the news on this matter. So is SIA still flying to Toronto at the end of the year? If they are pls tell me any details you know of.

[flo]

Dear SQalMundo, again, I would like to introduce you to our brand new and super-efficient search function! It's absolutely free of charge and according to research by Dr. W. Nairolf, usage significantly increases your life-span!

There are rumors, but not any concrete plans for the Toronto route. If SQ does not go for the Boeing 777-200LR it could probably transform some 777-300ER orders into, YYZ is rather not an option given the distance to Ontario's vivid city.

I cannot imagine SQ flying to Funchal. Madrid and Mexico City sound reasonable but even I as a very young fella on this board know never to trust Wikipedia information without proof.

[SQalMundo]

Dear SQalMundo, again, I would like to introduce you to our brand new and super-efficient search function! It's absolutely free of charge and according to research by Dr. W. Nairolf, usage significantly increases your life-span!

There are rumors, but not any concrete plans for the Toronto route. If SQ does not go for the Boeing 777-200LR it could probably transform some 777-300ER orders into, YYZ is rather not an option given the distance to Ontario's vivid city.

I cannot imagine SQ flying to Funchal. Madrid and Mexico City sound reasonable but even I as a very young fella on this board know never to trust Wikipedia information without proof.

If SIA confirms this route to YYZ as a direct route, I think it'll use an A340-500 because this is the only other ultra long haul plane I know of and I don't think SIA is ordering any B777-200LRs.

Somehow I trust Wikipedia because remember the time SIA introduces flights to Houston? It also says so in Wikipedia. And the history, fleet, current destinations sections of the SIA page in Wikipedia is also correct when I compared it to SIA's website. Announcements of future activity may not be that accurate (like when Wikipedia claims Skywest Airlines and East Star Airlines would fly to Singapore from Perth and Wuhan respectively last year, but in the end they never materialised, though Wikipedia removed the info later), but it is only because they found the supposedly wrong info somewhere else. So even if I don't trust the info they give, I'd look for evidence, and usually it turns out to be accurate.

As for Funchal, I also cannot imagine SIA flying to a small place. If the route does materialise, I doubt it'll be there for long, as you compare the examples from the past, when SIA flew to Malta, Hiroshima, and Durban in the past and stopped flying within a few years from debut.

[flo]

Yeah but you pretty much offered yourself the answer on a silver tablet. Why would SQ use the A340-500 to Toronto?! Those birds are business class only, so it's probably good to bring them to places with a high yield to fill those 100 seats. Could Toronto do this? Well, maybe ... but this is not relevant. SQ has 5 Airbus A340-500. If I am not mistaken, they need 4 for the two turnarounds and one swaps, right? They would at least need 6 A340-500's to do this route while maintaining the other two routes.

And just because Wikipedia was correct once, it's always correct. Heck, even I edited that page and included the DC10 to their ex-fleet. Yes, a reason why SQ probably won't fly to MAD, MEX and Funchal would be those:

a) given the aircraft delays and the exclusion of the first 777's from SQ's fleet, SQ cannot really open up new destinations as they are constantly short of aircraft!

b) madrid, mexico city and funchal are not exactly close locations. SQ would need way too many new planes to do these routes.

c) madrid. okay. barajas is a big airport. mexico city. well, as well ... but funchal?!?!?! this is the indicator that the wikipedia info was probably some wet dream of a funchal based person. why go to funchal when you already have barcelona on the peninsula and when you can do this per codeshare on spanair?

d) i did a google search. the only results that came up where the wikipedia ones. strong case that this is bull because it hasn't seen any other release.

e) i edited wikipedia to not show this kind of uncited (!) and unserious information.

[MAN Flyer]

in Wikipedia (though they said that SIA is going to fly to Mexico City, Madrid and Funchal in 2010)

I've seen a lot of nonsense on Wikipedia, but claiming SQ are going to fly to Funchal is one of the best yet.

Somehow I trust Wikipedia

You certainly don't hear that very often...hardly surprising when you look at the classic example above.

[huaiwei]

As quite an active editor in wikipedia, and me being quite involved in the SQ article, may I just state quite categorically that Wikipedia, although aiming to be as accurate as possible, will also be susceptible to vandalism and abuse due to its open-editing nature.

This is not to say that the site is beyond redemption however. Individuals like myself who frequent the site often are usually the ones who spot prank entries. In addition, wikipedia is based on verifiability of information. As long as the said data does not have an associated footnote linking to a trustworthy source, you can assume that it needs to be cross referenced yourself.

[huaiwei]

b) madrid, mexico city and funchal are not exactly close locations. SQ would need way too many new planes to do these routes.

c) madrid. okay. barajas is a big airport. mexico city. well, as well ... but funchal?!?!?! this is the indicator that the wikipedia info was probably some wet dream of a funchal based person. why go to funchal when you already have barcelona on the peninsula and when you can do this per codeshare on spanair?

I doubt Madrid will be restored any time soon, all the more so with Barcelona now in the network.

Mexico City and South American destinations has been on the horizon for quite some time now, especially thanks to the numerous open-skies agreements concluded with several of these countries, but again, it will be a risky endeavour. I have long expected them to fly to South America via the US through an extension of its non-stop routes, but now I am not so sure.

[zvezda]

Mexico City and South American destinations has been on the horizon for quite some time now, especially thanks to the numerous open-skies agreements concluded with several of these countries, but again, it will be a risky endeavour. I have long expected them to fly to South America via the US through an extension of its non-stop routes, but now I am not so sure.

The bureaucratic hassles of transiting the US perpetrated by the Bush administration just about completely rule out SQ tags beyond US destinations. Service to central or south America would make more sense from YVR, but that's unlikely for other reasons. SIN-JNB-GRU would have been a possibility before SA joined Star Alliance, but now it makes more sense to codeshare.

[huaiwei]

The bureaucratic hassles of transiting the US perpetrated by the Bush administration just about completely rule out SQ tags beyond US destinations. Service to central or south America would make more sense from YVR, but that's unlikely for other reasons.

Do you have more info about the Bush admin's stance on this one, for I believed the open skies agreement would have permitted those flights?

Also, won't YVR be a huge detour, much like the Singapore-Moscow-Houston route?

[Kiwi]

It isn't just about open skies, there are other factors.

For example, did you know through pax on international same a/c flights that transit USA require all pax to disembark, enter USA by going through immigration and then reboard. Those that need visa to visit USA also need a visa even though they have no wish to enter USA. LAX even has a special secure airside holding pen, but even so NZ1/2 pax LHR-AKL vv still have to go through immigration. The process is a major turnoff for pax and a major hassle for the airline too.

[SQ77WMEL]

WOAH i finally remember my SQtalk login, and this is what i get greeted with! Pleaaaaassseee let it be true, i need to fly to YYZ next AUG, and im really struggling to decide how to get their, i always fly SQ now so it was a bit annoying when i found out they didnt fly it I dont want to fly Qantas, so my only other good option is CX, but i want SQ!!

[KeithMEL]

WOAH i finally remember my SQtalk login, and this is what i get greeted with! Pleaaaaassseee let it be true, i need to fly to YYZ next AUG, and im really struggling to decide how to get their, i always fly SQ now so it was a bit annoying when i found out they didnt fly it I dont want to fly Qantas, so my only other good option is CX, but i want SQ!!

You can still fly SQ most of the way if you don't mind stopping in YVR and picking up a domestic flight for the next 4-5hrs. Or SQ to Europe and connect to a codeshare operated by AC/LH across the atlantic.

QF doesn't fly to YYZ either.

[SQ77WMEL]

You can still fly SQ most of the way if you don't mind stopping in YVR and picking up a domestic flight for the next 4-5hrs. Or SQ to Europe and connect to a codeshare operated by AC/LH across the atlantic.

QF doesn't fly to YYZ either.

Well by flying QF i meant going MEL-LAX on their A380 to LAX, transfer in LAX to a AA 737 (and most likely lose my luggage in LAX)

or

Currently fly SQ MEL-SIN-ICN-YVR-YYZ, and thats a LONG way to go in one shot, if i was gonna do that i think id have to stop in SIN and ICN

[jjpb3]

Why not MEL-SIN-FRA-JFK-YYZ (the last segment on AA) to maximize the proportion of flight time spent on SQ?

(I assume you're taking Y, because you had eliminated the SIN-EWR nonstop as an option?)

[SQ77WMEL]

Hmm this is a good point, via FRA and JFK....il have to check that out. Either way im gonna do stopovers in either JFK/FRA or SIN/ICN.

Yeah in the case i just couldnt justify SIN-EWR on the 345. The way i see it anyways is that im lucky enough to be flying so i can handle sitting in Y this time