A380/77W: route and equipment rumours

[TerryK]

....Summary:

End of October:
SIN-TPE-JFK w/ 77W
SIN-FRA (SQ25/26) w/ A380
SQ 325/326 stays 77W
SQ 327/328 will be discontinued

Pure speculation or is there a reliable source for this summary?

[SMK77]

I think SMK77 was referring to culling the entire SIN-MUC-MAN route consolidating German market in FRA with 1 A380 and 1 77W.

Anyway, you also have not shared with us about what you are worried about wrt SQ327/328.

That's correct. That makes complete sense to me. Almost same capacity, lower cost and MUC-MAN won't be serviced at all.

[MAN Flyer]

I think SMK77 was referring to culling the entire SIN-MUC-MAN route consolidating German market in FRA with 1 A380 and 1 77W.

Fine, but that's not what it said. In that case it should have said MUC and MAN.

Pure speculation or is there a reliable source for this summary?

It's all speculation at the moment. Some of it close, some of it definitely not.

[SQueeze]

Fine, but that's not what it said. In that case it should have said MUC and MAN.



It's all speculation at the moment. Some of it close, some of it definitely not.

The part which is "definitely not" must be pulling out of MUC. Was on this flight last winter. It was 100% J load to MUC and 4 pax in F. But onwards to MAN, only 5 in J and 1 in F. Similar case on the return journey.

I guess it makes sense to de-link in order to be able to sell a bit more to MUC.

Not sure about Y loads to MAN though. In mid winter, at the gate, I don't think there were more than 100 pax.

[SMK77]

Fine, but that's not what it said. In that case it should have said MUC and MAN.

That's exactly what it said:

SQ 327/328 will be discontinued

No SQ 327/328, no SIN-MUC-SIN, no MUC-MAN-MUC.

Maybe they fly SIN-MAN non-stop with some 772 if they like MAN so much, but then again MAN might just disappear completely...

[MAN Flyer]

That's exactly what it said:

That's not what it said at all, this is what it said:

Culling MUC-MAN would also free up the aircrafts for SIN-TPE-JFK.

That says culling MUC to MAN, it doesn't even mention SIN, which is what you are saying in 'exactly' said. Actually mentioning the airport at the beginning and end of the route you are claiming will cease would help.

As for the other comments on SQ327/8, well, it is a rumour thread I suppose...

[SMK77]

The part which is "definitely not" must be pulling out of MUC. Was on this flight last winter. It was 100% J load to MUC and 4 pax in F. But onwards to MAN, only 5 in J and 1 in F. Similar case on the return journey.

Replacing 2 77W by one A380 has happened before and it makes a lot of sense: Running the A380 is costing only 75% of running two 77W - whereas the capacity - especially in J - is almost the same.

If you wanna fly to Germany and SQ is no longer flying to MUC: Would you take LH's non-stop flight to MUC or would you take SQ's A380 via FRA?

[kt74]

A slightly strange comment. First of all they couldn't operate to those places as they don't have the aircraft .... I am sure you would not be silly enough to claim that just because SQ doesn't fly to a certain airport doesn't mean others can't make it work.

Errr, you just used the exact same argument to claim that EK and QR had lots of flights ex-MAN, therefore SQ should too. And I think the point of my previous list is that SQ did fly to all those wacky destinations, mostly as tag-ons to existing routes (MAD-CDG-SIN, SXF-ZRH-SIN, YYZ-AMS-VIE-SIN, AMS-MLA-AUH-MLE-SIN, etc) - when SQ had a lot fewer aircraft. None of those routes lasted, because there wasn't enough yield. And that's why MAN-MUC on a 77W was never going to last either

It's not a matter of comparing MAN to LHR - it's merely observing that yields out of MAN are a lot lower than many other cities in Europe. But I do like the conspiracy theory perpetuated by Our Friends In The North that it's all BA's fault Actually, as you know, QF never wanted to fly to MAN anyway - it was only ever an elaborate LHR slot-sitting exercise!

[FN-GM]

I guess it makes sense to de-link in order to be able to sell a bit more to MUC.

How would it make sense? They would be selling the seats anyway from MAN, what extra would they gain by selling them at MUC instead?

QF never wanted to fly to MAN anyway

I thought they did fly to MAN at one point?

Not sure about Y loads to MAN though. In mid winter, at the gate, I don't think there were more than 100 pax.

I flew out in early December from MAN and the Y canin was almost full.

[MAN Flyer]

Errr, you just used the exact same argument to claim that EK and QR had lots of flights ex-MAN, therefore SQ should too.

Where did I say that ?. I was responding to your sweeping generalisation that there was no yield ex-MAN, and merely pointed out who the main long haul carriers who have recently increased there flights and premium cabin sizes from that yield-less airport.

And that's why MAN-MUC on a 77W was never going to last either.

The current route is not about MAN it's about MUC, and that is doing pretty well so far. If the tag-on was 'never going to last', how come it managed to work for years earlier when it was tagged via ZRH, BOM, BRU etc and it does make you wonder why the hell SQ have been operating from MAN for a quarter of a century.

But I do like the conspiracy theory perpetuated by Our Friends In The North that it's all BA's fault Actually, as you know, QF never wanted to fly to MAN anyway - it was only ever an elaborate LHR slot-sitting exercise!

And we do enjoy shandy drinkers jumping in with sweeping generalisations about an airport and routes they clearly know little about. You'll be telling us SQ girls are robotic next as I am sure you will have read that somehere.

BA were the main reason for CX and QF stopping services, that's well know by people 'up here'. And your comment about QF and the slot sitting is clearly referring to the 146 they had doing just that a few years ago, but indicates you didn't even know about QF previously operating scheduled 747 flights to MAN.

Maybe a bit of better research next time.

*I did say when this thread started I would stay out of it. I'll stick to that next time.

[daron4000]

Replacing 2 77W by one A380 has happened before and it makes a lot of sense: Running the A380 is costing only 75% of running two 77W - whereas the capacity - especially in J - is almost the same.

If you wanna fly to Germany and SQ is no longer flying to MUC: Would you take LH's non-stop flight to MUC or would you take SQ's A380 via FRA?

SQ hasn't replaced two 77W w/ 1 A380 on two routes. This makes no sense- if what you are arguing is the case, as it did with ZRH and CDG, SQ would upgauge 25/26 to A380 and eliminate 325/326; it would not touch 327/328.

Please clarify whether you were just putting forth a suggestion/idea or whether this came from a credible source?

[SMK77]

SQ hasn't replaced two 77W w/ 1 A380 on two routes. This makes no sense- if what you are arguing is the case, as it did with ZRH and CDG, SQ would upgauge 25/26 to A380 and eliminate 325/326; it would not touch 327/328.

Please clarify whether you were just putting forth a suggestion/idea or whether this came from a credible source?

No credible source, just a thought - MUC is the less popular route and the flight from FRA is just 30 minutes. It's a matter of is SQ risking a lot of business when the cull MUC? My guess: no.

[kt74]

The current route is not about MAN it's about MUC, and that is doing pretty well so far. If the tag-on was 'never going to last', how come it managed to work for years earlier when it was tagged via ZRH, BOM, BRU etc and it does make you wonder why the hell SQ have been operating from MAN for a quarter of a century.

Ahhh, the "it's not about me, it's about you" argument The reason why SQ have operated profitably from MAN for 25 years is exactly because it had no competition - the same reason SQ used to fly 8 widebodies a day to KUL. Now that you can fly one stop from MAN via DXB/AUH/DOH to anywhere in Asia and Australia multiple times a day on a highly discounted flat bed (even an A380 if you wish), SQ's extra stop, lower frequency and higher prices are simply uncompetitive by comparison. In fact there is nowhere in the SE Asia and Australia that mainline SQ flies to that EK/QR/EY cannot get you to ex-MAN in the same or fewer stops (except Brunei and Adelaide)

Look, I'm really sorry it's your local airport, but the writing was always on the wall for SQ in MAN. SQ should really be thankful that (a) so many European governments are protectionist against EK, and (b) Airbus can't make A380s fast enough, because continued expansion of EK/QR/EY into marginal SQ destinations like FCO, AMS and CPH will only serve to hasten their demise

BA were the main reason for CX and QF stopping services, that's well know by people 'up here'. And your comment about QF and the slot sitting is clearly referring to the 146 they had doing just that a few years ago, but indicates you didn't even know about QF previously operating scheduled 747 flights to MAN.

The BA rumour is nothing more than hearsay, and doesn't explain why so many other airlines failed to make long haul work ex-MAN (AC, SA, BD, MH). And, yes, I'm fully aware that QF used to shuttle empty 747s up to MAN after depositing most of their passengers in LHR - at least they had the sense to wet-lease a 146 in the later years

[Nick C]

SIN-MUC getting canned? Pigs will fly.

Consolidation of flights at a destination. Possible.

Consolidation of destinations to a flight. Unlikely. CAN-HKG is approx 50% the distance of MUC-FRA, if that's the case why not ditch CAN and consolidate all in HKG?

[SQueeze]

Any thoughts about SQ25/26 terminating at FRA with A380 and SQ325/326 getting the tag-on to JFK with 77W with or without addition of SIN-TPE-JFK?

Will it be an attractive schedule if JFK is tagged onto SQ325/326? It will be a daytime flight from SIN similar to SQ21/22. Then they can change SQ21/22 to red eye flight similar to TG's schedule many years back?

And any thoughts about JFK being tagged to another European station? Like SIN-MUC-JFK?