A350 Deliveries and Routes

[sutrakhk]

Looks like the single PY seats at the back of the plane in the 1-4-1 arrangement will be more towards the aisle than the window. There seems to be a huge storage bin at the window side, similar to the A380 upper deck economy storage bins, but bigger.

Perhaps it could store a full sized carry on baggage, due to the lack of overhead bins or smaller bins near the back of the cabin?

You could think this is seat C, but actually it could be seat H and the box have to share with some cabin equipments?

[Trent1000]

Definitely mine as well. I hope that they'd leave SFO as it is with the standard A350 and re-start ORD, non-stop from SIN this time. Since SQ started codesharing with UA out of IAH, maybe they would also start codesharing out of ORD to cities around the Midwest.

I think they will leave SFO as it is. The A350 280t version adds about 300nm of range which is about the distance between LAX and SFO. If SQ opts for a few of those, the LAX ULRs can be freed for more and further US cities.

[Jumbojet Lover]

I’m guessing Seattle or Vancouver.

Seattle because of its status as a tech hub and Vancouver because SQ’s *A partner Air Canada could code share and provide feeder/ onward journey connections all across Canada.

I believe the standard A350-900 is already capable of serving SEA and YVR from Singapore. Both are not big markets, let alone big premium markets so it's unlikely that SQ will deploy the A350-900ULR there. If it's anywhere in Canada it might be YYZ Toronto that sees the SQ A350-900ULR.

[Jumbojet Lover]

I think they will leave SFO as it is. The A350 280t version adds about 300nm of range which is about the distance between LAX and SFO. If SQ opts for a few of those, the LAX ULRs can be freed for more and further US cities.

A teaser from the SQ CEO:

While he declined to discuss specifics about how the advent of more non-stop USA flights will affect the carrier’s Americas network, he hinted that it could have an impact on SIA’s Singapore-San Francisco service, which is operated with the carrier’s baseline A350-900s. These have 253 seats: 42 in business class, 24 in premium economy, and 187 in economy.

“The A350-900 seems to be doing well,” said Goh. “We will probably keep part of that operation on. Whether or not we will add more is something that will be under review.”

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/ar...-900ul-449158/

Double-daily non-stop SIN-SFO, with one flight operated by the 350ULR? Or additional less-than-daily 350ULR service to SFO and additional less-than-daily 350ULR service to EWR? Such suspense!

[SQ228]

He is appearing to say things while not saying much at all, which is what he has to do at this point.

It's relatively simple to see how this situation developed, to my mind. They ordered 7 of them way back to do daily non-stops to LAX, EWR and SFO with the seventh providing coverage for technical problems and maintenance rotation. Suddenly UA announced non-stop flights on the SIN-SFO and SQ went into a huddle and pulled out all stops to match the announcement using the standard A350 available to them. Since then, the current SFO arrangements have been working better than expected for what was originally a stop-gap measure, so there's now a desire not to upset that apple cart. They obviously have a strategy in place to rework the whole situation, but this time they don't want UA, or any other competitor, to know what it is and be able to start preparing for it.

[9V-JKL]

I agree with you SQ228 that SQ will now only tell the market when its ready to launch.

The official news releases for the SFO and EWR nonstops have been about 4 months prior to actual start. I believe the LAX launch will also come the same time as will the 3rd destination.

[sbs2716g]

Guess it might be 2 more destination (exclude LAX). Maybe 1/3/5/7 to one destination 2/4/6 to another?

[davidfusq]

Guess it might be 2 more destination (exclude LAX). Maybe 1/3/5/7 to one destination 2/4/6 to another?

Some possibilities for speculation:
1. SQ31/32 SIN-SFO-SIN to go for mix 3 ULR and 4 standard A359 frequency, if SQ want to reduce the economy capacity on SIN-SFO route and carry more premium economy on this route. Otherwise maintain 7 weekly standard A359.
2. New SIN-ORD-SIN on 4 weekly ULR or 7 weekly ULR frequency depending on demand calculation.
3. New SIN-YYZ-SIN on 3 - 4 weekly ULR frequency.
4. New SIN-ICN-YVR-ICN-SIN standard A359 daily service to replace the SIN-ICN-LAX routing served non-stop. SQ would need to upgauge one or two A359 route to 77W to free up an A359 for this new route.
5. SIN-NRT-LAX vv service upgauged to A380.

[Trent1000]

He is appearing to say things while not saying much at all, which is what he has to do at this point.

It's relatively simple to see how this situation developed, to my mind. They ordered 7 of them way back to do daily non-stops to LAX, EWR and SFO with the seventh providing coverage for technical problems and maintenance rotation. Suddenly UA announced non-stop flights on the SIN-SFO and SQ went into a huddle and pulled out all stops to match the announcement using the standard A350 available to them. Since then, the current SFO arrangements have been working better than expected for what was originally a stop-gap measure, so there's now a desire not to upset that apple cart. They obviously have a strategy in place to rework the whole situation, but this time they don't want UA, or any other competitor, to know what it is and be able to start preparing for it.

My take is: SQ and UA looks more like cooperating with each other than competing.

UA launched non-stops to SIN from SFO first, but they also pulled out of SIN-HKG and SIN-NRT.

UA reduces capacity between SFO and SIN by using 789 instead of 772. SQ also reduces capacity by changing one of the 2 x 777-300er to a A359. This can only be good for yields.

Again, UA gets the LAX nonstop first but reduces capacity between LAX and SIN by using 789 instead of 772. SQ switches the A380 to 2 x 777-300ER.

In addition, SQ closes the SFO SKL to join United's Polaris.

To me, there is a lot of intricate give and take between these supposedly rivals which follows a pattern: UA gets the non-stops first, but cuts more capacity to SIN. I read somewhere that SIA's Goh travelled to US to meet up with United's folks which started this string of adjustments, beginning with the SFO non-stops. But I can't seem to find it now.

In any case, I don't believe that UA and SQ are totally friendly with each other. But it seems to be more friend now than otherwise.

[ycp81]

Some possibilities for speculation:

4. New SIN-ICN-YVR-ICN-SIN standard A359 daily service to replace the SIN-ICN-LAX routing served non-stop. SQ would need to upgauge one or two A359 route to 77W to free up an A359 for this new route.

SQ only has 3x weekly rights on the 5th freedom ICN-YVR sector (or anywhere in Canada via ICN) and has no rights for additional flights. They flew this route years back on a B772ER but could not make it work despite rather good loads. However, SIN-YVR could be operated non-stop using the standard A359s. Singapore has open-skies policy with Canada, hence no restrictions on the number of flights which SQ could operate non-stop to Canada from Singapore..

[ycp81]

UA reduces capacity between SFO and SIN by using 789 instead of 772. SQ also reduces capacity by changing one of the 2 x 777-300er to a A359. This can only be good for yields.

Again, UA gets the LAX nonstop first but reduces capacity between LAX and SIN by using 789 instead of 772. SQ switches the A380 to 2 x 777-300ER.

Not really. Before the ULRs, UA's flights were SIN-HKG-ORD and SIN-NRT-IAD. Majority of the passengers would either end their journey in HKG/NRT or connect to other UA services to other parts of USA in UA's HKG and NRT hubs. With the SIN-SFO/LAX ULR flights, UA is effectively offering much more seats direct to USA than before and has claimed a huge chunk of corporate business.

[Trent1000]

Before the ULRs, UA's flights were SIN-HKG-ORD and SIN-NRT-IAD.

Ah, I stand corrected. They had hubs systems in HKG and NRT.

[davidfusq]

Not really. Before the ULRs, UA's flights were SIN-HKG-ORD and SIN-NRT-IAD. Majority of the passengers would either end their journey in HKG/NRT or connect to other UA services to other parts of USA in UA's HKG and NRT hubs. With the SIN-SFO/LAX ULR flights, UA is effectively offering much more seats direct to USA than before and has claimed a huge chunk of corporate business.

Would looking at UA routes served prior to their discontinuation (i.e. IAD and ORD) provide a hint on the future ULR route for SQ?
What is the proportion of the passengers originating from Singapore continuing to IAD and ORD on these UA flight. Or most of the Singapore originating passengers terminate at HKG or NRT? Or continue on another legs of flights to other US cities from the HKG and NRT hubs?

[9V-SPL]

Singapore Airlines closed First Class bookings on Singapore – Seoul Incheon – Los Angeles route, for travel on/after 01DEC18

https://twitter.com/Airlineroute/sta...01255353311232

[Jumbojet Lover]

In addition, SQ closes the SFO SKL to join United's Polaris.

To me, there is a lot of intricate give and take between these supposedly rivals which follows a pattern: UA gets the non-stops first, but cuts more capacity to SIN. I read somewhere that SIA's Goh travelled to US to meet up with United's folks which started this string of adjustments, beginning with the SFO non-stops. But I can't seem to find it now.

In any case, I don't believe that UA and SQ are totally friendly with each other. But it seems to be more friend now than otherwise.

I doubt SQ closed the SKL to be more aligned with UA; rather, UA just needed the space for their massive Polaris lounge and SKL was in the way. It was probably not a difficult commercial decision for SQ to close their own outstation lounge which would primarily serve their two daily flights and in need of a refresh/refurbishment to bring it up to date.

As for SQ and UA cooperating and coordinating capacity to reduce yields...is that even allowed legally? Isn't it collusion to raise fares to the disadvantage of the consumer? Coordinating schedules and capacity is what codeshare/joint-venture airline partners do, and only after the regulators are satisfied that it isn't anti-competitive and bad for the consumer.

Anyway as ycp81 mentioned, UA has actually increased US-SIN capacity with their non-stop flights from SFO and LAX.