Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Confirmed : SQ to start flights to DUS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by MAN Flyer View Post
    In Y it actually does quite well during the school holidays when it can be full on MUC-MAN and vv with families going skiing and also when Utd or City are playing Bayern Munich in the champions league.
    See, I never would have guessed that but it makes complete sense. I sometimes suspect multi-city football leagues were an invention of airlines...

    Many may not be aware of how SQ last year made money out of Australian football. An Adelaide team and a Perth team ended up in a semi-final together (may have been quarter, I take little interest) and rather than get into the spirit and put on extra flights, QF and VA jacked up the price of existing flights astronomically. There are no longer any bus services between the two cities (LCCs rendered them uneconomical) and the train exists for tourists and is booked out months in advance.

    SQ ran a snap promotion of 100 tickets ADL-SIN-PER and return and undercut QF and VA's lowest price (wasn't hard to do). I'd say they made a tidy little sum filling up seats that would have otherwise sat empty.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by yangyongjun View Post
      SQ just announced a direct thrice-weekly service to DUS with the A359. I didn't see this one coming...

      Singapore Airlines announces Dusseldorf route
      Yep, press release was mentioned 2 days ago.
      Flickr, Reviews, SIN Credit Card Usage Reference Table

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by MAN Flyer View Post
        I'm on SQ328 tomorrow night so I'll see how many get on at MUC.
        It was full in Y this morning on MUC-MAN as over 100 got on in MUC due to another reason it can sometimes do well - LH strikes!.

        The poor crew got caught out a little as they had only scheduled the usual 13 for MUC-MAN-MUC rather the full complement of 15. Good job there was only me in F.

        Comment


        • #34
          Could the runway length at DUS be a factor in why they use the 359 instead of the 77W? The 77W probably wouldn't be able to make it out at MTOW. The 359 barely cuts it.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Airbus SAS A340-500 View Post
            Could the runway length at DUS be a factor in why they use the 359 instead of the 77W? The 77W probably wouldn't be able to make it out at MTOW. The 359 barely cuts it.
            I was a bit curious about this myself. So I put my avgeek hat on, dug out Boeing's document stating airport requirements (freely available online), and did some math.

            DUS has a runway just short of 10,000 feet. A 77W at MGTOW needs 10,000 feet of runway to take off at "standard" conditions (15 degrees celsius, sea level). However, it could take off in less than 9,500 feet at 25,000 pounds under MGTOW.

            The long and short of it is: a 77W could fly from DUS to SIN with some cargo (theoretical) payload restrictions. I say theoretical because the charts say that even with a restricted take-off weight a 77W could carry more than 10 tons of cargo from DUS to SIN, which is still a lot.

            Comment


            • #36
              DUS has some significant restraints. There are lots of competing interests within the city who have differing views of the airport. The business community is pushing for a bigger exhibition precinct that is better connected to the airport but is facing major opposition from local residents. This is understandable though if you are a resident of the suburb Lohausen which is literally at the western end of the runway. Don't mention "A380" round those parts...

              Internally it has a "regional airport feel" with a very long empty main concourse. Terminal A however, which I would assume SQ will be allocated to, has extremely cramped security facilities with no provision for an express lane that I've ever seen. Those with lounge access won't be impressed although a midday departure should help provide capacity once the morning flights clear.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Spaniard View Post
                I would love to see Madrid reinstated. With TG withdrawing the route it is not connected to south east Asia and it's very well connected to Latin America.
                CX was quick to pick the opportunity - launching 77W 4x weekly service to MAD from June. Come on SQ, don't miss this one!

                http://airlineroute.net/2015/09/10/cx-mad-jun16/

                Comment


                • #38
                  As this is my first post, hello to all!

                  I have not flown with SQ for a number of years - the days of the 772 non-stop from MAN. We are using SQ to go to and from NZ. Heathrow to Christchurch and then Auckland to Manchester. Although I have been generally aware of the MUN stopover (my cousin is a relatively frequent user) it will be the first time I have experienced it and it has got me thinking whether this would change in the short run (next 2/3 years or so).

                  I don't know how well the route is doing, but thought some of you guys might be able to shed some light on it.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Welcome to SQTalk, Dobbo.

                    If you are only flying back into MAN on SQ328 and not out from there on SQ327 then you stay on board in MUC for the hour the aircraft is on the ground. We are supposed to be decoupling from MUC and going nonstop on the A350 but when (or if) that happens only a few in the tower at Airline House can know for sure. It's met with a shrug of the shoulders by the staff at MAN these days.

                    It was supposed to be one of the first to get it so it is slightly worrying that hasn't happened. From a route viability point of view the sooner they do that the better imo, even if it means we lose F on the route. CX are having a ball on their new route to MAN and are also supposed to be going daily next year. The A350 nonstop with Y, PE and J would be ideal for the route.
                    Last edited by MAN Flyer; 6 December 2015, 07:19 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Hi MAN Flyer - thanks for the greetings!

                      It is odd that Dusseldorf is added as a new route. The only explanation that makes sense is that it is a strategic decision for new routes over improving/amending existing routes.

                      I have seen a number of proposals that would decouple MAN from MUN, but would couple MAN with a U.S. East coast destination (usually Washington). This may not be a bad solution. However the MAN-MUN coupling must be reasonably popular to require a 777-300ER every day.

                      The A350 is a fairly big aircraft. Do you think if MAN and MUN are decoupled it could go daily? Or do you think they hedge and go (for example) non-stop A350 4x weekly with the MUN stopover 3x weekly on the 77W?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Dobbo View Post
                        It is odd that Dusseldorf is added as a new route. The only explanation that makes sense is that it is a strategic decision for new routes over improving/amending existing routes.
                        The better economic performance of the A350 mean new routes suddenly become viable. They'll use it to launch other new routes I would imagine.

                        I have seen a number of proposals that would decouple MAN from MUN, but would couple MAN with a U.S. East coast destination (usually Washington). This may not be a bad solution. However the MAN-MUN coupling must be reasonably popular to require a 777-300ER every day.
                        Rumours I have heard in the last few years about MAN :

                        - Delinked and nonstop again with the A350
                        - Added to CPH
                        - Added to AMS
                        - Added to BRU
                        - Added to GVA
                        - Added to ARN
                        - SIN-MAN-DUB
                        - SIN-MAN-ORD
                        - SIN-MAN-EWR
                        - SIN-MAN-BOS
                        - SIN-MAN-IAH

                        There are others I can't remember at the moment but take your pic.

                        The A350 is a fairly big aircraft. Do you think if MAN and MUN are decoupled it could go daily? Or do you think they hedge and go (for example) non-stop A350 4x weekly with the MUN stopover 3x weekly on the 77W?
                        Without looking at the exact numbers I don't think SQ's A350's are much different in capacity to the aircraft on the route now and the old two class 772ER's that used to go nonstop.

                        MAN used to handle a daily nonstop flight to SIN with ease. In fact, shortly before the triple whammy of the GFC, lack of aircraft due to delayed 380's and poor fleet planning along with a huge increase in the price of oil (MAN was heavy on fuel as it was the longest nonstop 777 flight in the network) the route was doing so well that they requested a second daily flight three times a week to cope with the demand. I used to be waitlisted for a JCL seat quite often in those days.

                        The market is different now as the ME4 (SQ count TK as a threat as well as the other lot) have a serious amount of daily capacity into MAN now and CX are doing well four times a week. I am confident nonstop flight sans F would do very well on the A350, but we'll just have to wait and see.

                        BTW, it's MUC not MUN.
                        Last edited by MAN Flyer; 9 December 2015, 10:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by MAN Flyer View Post
                          Without looking at the exact numbers I don't think SQ's A350's are much different in capacity to the aircraft on the route now and the old two class 772ER's that used to go nonstop.
                          Compared to the 77WR the A350 has:

                          - 6 fewer J seats (48 versus 42)
                          - 4 fewer S seats (28 versus 24)
                          - 3 more Y seats (184 versus 187)

                          An A350 represents a modest downgauge from any 77W as far as SQ is concerned, if you set aside the F cabin.

                          Compared to longhaul 772s, the A350 has a much more premium configuration and, accordingly, a smaller economy section.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Thanks gents - I'll respond in full shortly. As a point of good admin, should this be in a new "rumoured" thread?

                            MANFlyer - MUC noted! (I'll try and remember - it is fairly ingrained in my head!)

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              MAN Flyer

                              Loads of routes proposed! Clearly it would be better if the route from MAN was non-stop but I suspect keeping at least a daily operation would be an important objective.

                              With the A350 strategy initially being to introduce new routes, is there any chance of the 77W remaining on the MAN route as a non stop service? Seems like overkill to me but maybe the cargo element makes it economical.

                              I agree that the marketplace at MAN has changed significantly since the early 2000s. Since that time Emirates have grown significantly, Etihad have a strong foothold and Quatar and Turkish are growing quickly. All four will compete with SQ on the Kangaroo route but will be able to offer a "one stop" option as opposed to SQs two stop.

                              Further to this, PAX from MAN have multiple other routes to the Far East via other European hubs. For example BA (Heathrow) Air France (CDG) KLM (Shipol) and Lufthansa Frankfurt) offer frequent connecting options.

                              Other far eastern carriers are there. CX have a 4x weekly (want to move to 8x weekly) non stop service using a 77W. This may end up as a 77W 350 mix. Chinese carriers are now moving in, Hainan start to Beijing soon (4x weekly moving to daily) and Air China want to run to Shanghai. Other chinese routes have also been mooted.

                              In short, there is a massive choice going East from MAN. The market is there, but it is competitive.

                              When looking at flights, I do have a preference to use SQ if possible. With perhaps one or two others it is in my top bracket of airlines. However, the key factors are (1) cost (2) departure time and (3) total travel time.

                              The choice from MAN makes it hard to justify as using the other carriers you tend to get better times and connections - particularly Emirates which is supposed to go 4x daily. Obviously geography dictates that Singapore is roughly twice as far from MAN as Dubai and this impacts on the economics of the route.

                              I don't know whether they can do anything to increase frequency (or if they particularly want to?) but I fear that unless something gives, the market from MAN will largely be lost. In particular, with the codeshare agreement with LH, SQ you'll ferry pax to MUC from MAN using LH aircraft before connecting with SQ.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by leops1984 View Post
                                Compared to the 77WR the A350 has:

                                - 6 fewer J seats (48 versus 42)
                                - 4 fewer S seats (28 versus 24)
                                - 3 more Y seats (184 versus 187)

                                An A350 represents a modest downgauge from any 77W as far as SQ is concerned, if you set aside the F cabin.

                                Compared to longhaul 772s, the A350 has a much more premium configuration and, accordingly, a smaller economy section.

                                Thanks for the info! I think the big difference is cargo capacity?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X