JFK-FRA-SIN Future

[TerryK]

....Our company uses SQ quite a bit for this leg as it is cheaper than LH - and better.....

That's good for the passenger, not good for the airlines. In fact, this implies the segment may not survive for long.

[MAN Flyer]

It may be worth noting that as CO have now joined *A it offers one stop connections to EWR via a number of destinations. You could even do it via MAN.

Whether SQ will codeshare with them or they end up with the same type of relationship they currently have with UA remains to be seen.

[SQ0815]

According to the data you can get from US DoT's BTS, SQ's loads to the US in 2008 were:

SQ1/2 (B744)
HKG-SFO 60%
SFO-HKG 73%

SQ 11/12 (B744)
NRT-LAX 77%
LAX-NRT 71%

SQ15/16 (B77W)
ICN-SFO 75%
SFO-ICN 63%

SQ25/26 (B744)
FRA-JFK 65%
JFK-FRA 67%

Better than expected, not much worse than the other US routes. Also the route wasn't hit too hard by the economic downturn. Just for comparison: LHR-JFK 2008 for all carriers together was 70.9%...

Additionally, you have to take into account, that SQ25/26's FRA-JFK segment is very short compared to the packed SIN-FRA segment (3900 of totally 10300 miles; SIN-FRA loads in 2008 were at 88.3% for all three carriers). You shouldn't forget this when you want to know if a flight is profitable.

So I don't see the need to drop FRA-JFK without substitution. A daily 77W would even be too small during the summer months (i.e. May 2008: 9699 passengers flying JFK->FRA, a daily 77W can only provide 8618 seats)

[TerryK]

.....SQ25/26 (B744)
FRA-JFK 65%
JFK-FRA 67%...

Load doesn't equate to yield.

I think you just confirmed the opposite. As JoJo Zep mentioned, SQ undersells FRA-JFK-FRA to compensate for less frequency. A low fare route with loads in the 60s is not likely to be profitable.

.....Additionally, you have to take into account, that SQ25/26's FRA-JFK segment is very short compared to the packed SIN-FRA segment (3900 of totally 10300 miles; SIN-FRA loads in 2008 were at 88.3% for all three carriers). You shouldn't forget this when you want to know if a flight is profitable....

No one ever suggested SQ to drop SQ25/26. SQ may drop FRA-JFK-FRA and operate SQ25/26 as SIN-FRA-SIN only. Of course, SQ will renumber them as 3xx flights.

[TerryK]

I did a quick check on JFK-FRA-JFK fares. LH, DL and SQ fly nonstop on this route, others are via connections.

Lowest published business fares:

- SQ DSPCLTA @ $2415+
- DL SRSL7 @5400+
- LH C1RC7E @ $5831+

- AA IT07SL @5600+
- BA RRCNA1N @ $5540+
- AZ DRT2 @ $5310+

Pretty tough to make a profit if your fare is less than half of your competitors and you still cannot fill up the plane.

[ycp81]

Plus SQ26/25 has a almost 12hrs layover in JFK doing nothing at all.

[SQ0815]

Load doesn't equate to yield.

As if I didn't know that. But I think nobody here exactly knows the yields of the routes, neither RASM nor CASM, so loads can give a first impression of how they are doing.
The only thing we know are the loads, and that SQ's break even load factor in 2008 was 70%. Another thing we don't know but we can estimate (considering the loads and the length of the segments) is that SQ 25/26 as a whole is very likely to have been profitable in 2008.

No one ever suggested SQ to drop SQ25/26. SQ may drop FRA-JFK-FRA and operate SQ25/26 as SIN-FRA-SIN only. Of course, SQ will renumber them as 3xx flights.

But you suggested dropping the FRA-JFK tag without compensation, and as the numbers clearly show this wouldn't make much sense. I.e., flying the JFK tag 5x weekly, or doing it with 77W would be some options. If you only look at the one segment isolatedly, you make things too easy which can lead to wrong decisions (what will happen to the remaining route? Will it still be profitable? What to do with the slots? What to do with the new spare time in FRA? Questions over questions...). If FRA-JFK would have to be dropped, what about the SFO routes? They are also in the 60s (ICN-SFO was already served by 77W), and the Asia-US tags with exactly these loads are much longer compared to the overall flight (HKG-SFO makes up for 6900 of totally 8500 miles, ICN-SFO 5700 of 8500, NRT-LAX 5500 of 8800) than it's the case for SQ 25/26 (as already said: only 3900 of 10300 miles). I highly doubt that these flights are doing much better than SQ25/26...

[tfung]

You guys are all forgetting about Cargo.. I'm guessing they have kept a 747 on that route is mainly because of cargo...

[MAN Flyer]

SQ25/26 (B744)
FRA-JFK 65%

I have to say, something drastic must have happened on that route then, as it was regularly single figures in J when I used to fly it. I was the only one on the lower deck on more than one occassion.

[maxmin]

I have to say, something drastic must have happened on that route then, as it was regularly single figures in J when I used to fly it. I was the only one on the lower deck on more than one occassion.

when was that?

[Bitterroot]

I have to say, something drastic must have happened on that route then, as it was regularly single figures in J when I used to fly it. I was the only one on the lower deck on more than one occassion.

Just from recent observations -- quite a few trips in/out of JFK on that schedule recently -- I'd say the load factors are good: easily the 65 - 67% reported, and in J and F as well as Y. Yields might well be low; I dunno.

What I will say is the majority of JFK pax are Singapore, not FRA. Sure, the flight is full between FRA and SIN -- but the FRA -- SIN pax are the incremental load, not the other way 'round. That schedule would not be full between SIN and FRA if the JFK tag weren't there.

[bmchris]

Well is there a better stop, other than FRA for SIN-NYC, that would provide a better business case? Somewhere in Asia, Europe, the Pacific, or the US?

Perhaps they could replace SIN-FRA-JFK with a SIN-LHR-JFK or SIN-CDG-JFK route, and just keep 2 daily SIN-FRAs? Or how about replacing a SIN-FRA-JFK with SIN-MUC-JFK, taking advantage of LH connections? There's probably a hundred, if not more, possible permutations - some more plausible than the others...

[EWR]

SQ is a profit making business, not a tool of Singapore government as some assert, they will serve a route as long as it is profitable.

do you say that in all seriousness?

[MAN Flyer]

when was that?

Good question...it wasn't this year.

Just from recent observations -- quite a few trips in/out of JFK on that schedule recently -- I'd say the load factors are good: easily the 65 - 67% reported, and in J and F as well as Y. Yields might well be low; I dunno.

Sounds like something drastic has happened then.

[TerryK]

....Sounds like something drastic has happened then.

The super low D fare may have something to do with it.