Shouldn't SQ operate just from T3?

[225]

I personally think its better to split them, if T3 is the only SQ terminal then it will get very busy most of the day and there is more chance of delays and queues and the lack of those in Changi is what makes it so great. Better to have a bit of spare capacity.
As for cost savings I'm sure it would be good for SQ but what do you think the chances are of SQ passing any savings on to the public..

[scooby5]

It is annoying to land in T2 with luggage when your car is parked in T3 or visa versa.

It is annoying to have to double check with almost every SQ flight to get an arrival terminal prior to meeting family, friends or colleagues.

It is annoying that if T3 is not big enough why the hell didn't they make it big enough in the beginning or instead extend T2 by another 3-4 gates but may incorporate giving CIAS a new building? There is space down there to add another leg also that can take another 8-10 to even maybe 15 gates probably. The open air parking lot could have been moved elsewhere.

I believe airlines in their home base should operate from a single terminal, making connections as simple and as quick as possible.

[kelvgoh]

I hear what people are saying but just thinking aloud for balance:

Operating from two terminals admittedly causes some inconvenience. But a skytrain links the two terminals every 10 minutes or so.

Personally I'm not keen on having terminals operate at full capacity - I do quite like the feeling of space one gets even when departing SIN T3 at night.

Just for comparison, anyone transiting through DXB T3 (dedicated Emirates terminal) at circa 1am will find the place not dissimilar to a city souk. Chock full with people, unpleasant toilets and uncleared tables at eating places.

Sometimes when I land at 7am in the morning, there are no more aerobridges available for use and thus my flight has to park at a remote bay. It takes 15 minutes to deplane, and another 15 minutes to be bussed to the central immigration hall, where it is another 30 minutes worth of queues.

The power of perspective.

[kt74]

Actually SQ wanted to operate from 1 terminal (imagine the cost savings!) but CAG refused.

Excellent. So is CAG subsidising the cost of SQ operating from two terminals? This is hardly the way to treat your biggest tenant...

Operating from two terminals admittedly causes some inconvenience. But a skytrain links the two terminals every 10 minutes or so.
...
Sometimes when I land at 7am in the morning, there are no more aerobridges available for use and thus my flight has to park at a remote bay. It takes 15 minutes to deplane, and another 15 minutes to be bussed to the central immigration hall, where it is another 30 minutes worth of queues.

I do agree that the Skytrain can be very convenient. In fact if you are parked at the A gates, it is easier to get to some of the F gates than the B gates. The problem with T3 is the walking distances from the lounge and between the gates. If you need to get to the B gates, you have to leave the lounges ridiculously early to negotiate the entire shopping mall (which is at least double the size of the T2 shopping mall - in fact, sometimes I get the Skytrain to T2, walk through T2, and then get the Skytrain back to T3 on the other side). Why can't there be a Skytrain through the terminal from A to B? (like in the DL terminal at Detroit, for example)

Remote parking would not be an issue if the bus transfer was better organised. One time arriving from CDG in F after a fantastic SQ flight, I was priority disembarked to a waiting bus which was then filled to capacity with Y passengers. Even EK has a separate bus for F passengers (and J passengers). Put it this way, if they could get premium bussing done properly, you'd be far better off being remote parked than arriving at an outer gate at any of the SIN terminals

In fact, in general, SIN is no longer the airport it used to be - it's far more pleasant, with far shorter walking distances at HKG or KUL or even BKK (lounges on every pier, buggy service for F, etc). The walking distances at SIN beat even those at LHR. Plus the lottery of at-gate security, and the poor public transport connectivity to the CBD

SIN is simply poorly designed and uncustomer-friendly

[flying.monkeyz]

Excellent. So is CAG subsidising the cost of SQ operating from two terminals? This is hardly the way to treat your biggest tenant...

You wait long long!!! CAG and SQ don't see eye to eye on many of the issues.

[cscs1956]

It is annoying to land in T2 with luggage when your car is parked in T3 or visa versa.

It is annoying to have to double check with almost every SQ flight to get an arrival terminal prior to meeting family, friends or colleagues.

It is annoying that if T3 is not big enough why the hell didn't they make it big enough in the beginning or instead extend T2 by another 3-4 gates but may incorporate giving CIAS a new building? There is space down there to add another leg also that can take another 8-10 to even maybe 15 gates probably. The open air parking lot could have been moved elsewhere.

I believe airlines in their home base should operate from a single terminal, making connections as simple and as quick as possible.

That is a few problems. You will see those taxi Q. 3 long one and sometime they have to call taxi from other terminals. This is all logistics problem due to airport design.

My believe of SQ using 2 terminals is more for different vendor to handle. Was told T2 and T3 is under different management?

[cscs1956]

Excellent. So is CAG subsidising the cost of SQ operating from two terminals? This is hardly the way to treat your biggest tenant...



I do agree that the Skytrain can be very convenient. In fact if you are parked at the A gates, it is easier to get to some of the F gates than the B gates. The problem with T3 is the walking distances from the lounge and between the gates. If you need to get to the B gates, you have to leave the lounges ridiculously early to negotiate the entire shopping mall (which is at least double the size of the T2 shopping mall - in fact, sometimes I get the Skytrain to T2, walk through T2, and then get the Skytrain back to T3 on the other side). Why can't there be a Skytrain through the terminal from A to B? (like in the DL terminal at Detroit, for example)

Remote parking would not be an issue if the bus transfer was better organised. One time arriving from CDG in F after a fantastic SQ flight, I was priority disembarked to a waiting bus which was then filled to capacity with Y passengers. Even EK has a separate bus for F passengers (and J passengers). Put it this way, if they could get premium bussing done properly, you'd be far better off being remote parked than arriving at an outer gate at any of the SIN terminals

In fact, in general, SIN is no longer the airport it used to be - it's far more pleasant, with far shorter walking distances at HKG or KUL or even BKK (lounges on every pier, buggy service for F, etc). The walking distances at SIN beat even those at LHR. Plus the lottery of at-gate security, and the poor public transport connectivity to the CBD

SIN is simply poorly designed and uncustomer-friendly

Sky train? I think it all depend on which end of terminal you arrived with. In some cases, is a long walk.

[SilverChris]

We can expect more crowded SQ lounges in T3 if they move in completely.

[SINFJ]

We can expect more crowded SQ lounges in T3 if they move in completely.

I tend not to agree. CAG could do a Suvarnabhumi

[flyguy]

yes its so much more convenient for pax n also greeters if SQ just operate out of T3 and besides savings SQ millions in labour, operational and lounges costs - and am certain that T3 will be able to cope with SQ flights even during its peak times - as then other carriers from T3 can be moved from T3 to T2 to fill in the void.

[flying.monkeyz]

No harm hoping, though it will never happen.

Let's see what they do about T4.

[RHG]

i don't know enough to comment on the technical aspects of SQ operating from 2 terminals but its pretty obvious there are some PR image issues.

I mean, singapore culture loves "new". T3 was and still is in "new" condition. But maybe, its more of risk diversification as well. In case T3 fails, there's always the tested T2 to fall back on.

It would be a disaster if SQ T3 lounge fails?

[lingua101]

I feel the T3 is like ghost town. The SATS lounge is very badly supply. Even lounge at CGK is better stock

[Guy Betsy]

Split the flights - but keep it that way ...and let arrivals and departures stay the way they are.. which means, flights from HKG will always land at T3, and flights from BKK will always be at T2. SQ is just making their own life easy by waiting till they know when the next flight will be to land in, but making everyone's life a living hell cos we don't know which terminal we will arrive in.

So if a EU flight is arriving at T2 but as an EU flight is supposed to be at T3, then BUS everyone to T3 arrival hall. Or else land and disembark at T3, then if the aircraft is scheduled to go to say BKK, then let departing passengers at T2 get on a bus and be bused to T3 to this particular aircraft.

Yes the arrival arrangement is crap.. and SQ/SIN is the only airline/airport having this really stupid arrangement.

[SilverChris]

i don't know enough to comment on the technical aspects of SQ operating from 2 terminals but its pretty obvious there are some PR image issues.

I mean, singapore culture loves "new". T3 was and still is in "new" condition. But maybe, its more of risk diversification as well. In case T3 fails, there's always the tested T2 to fall back on.

It would be a disaster if SQ T3 lounge fails?

I don't know what you mean by "disaster" but IMO, T3 IS nicer than T2 so I don't see how this affects their PR image.