Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Confirmed : SIN-MAN-IAH

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

  • Originally posted by Dobbo View Post
    Quote from a publicly available report at the MAN end:

    Singapore airlines have held a commercial review of their Singapore-Manchester-Houston transit service; it is performing well and significantly ahead of Moscow, where this transit option was previously located. Given such performance, the airline is looking at several scenarios which could deliver passenger growth. There are a range of options at this point and we will work with them to deliver the best outcome for both parties.

    Nothing earth shattering here, which is in line with the comments above. Assuming the likes of BNE become "regionalised" (not a good decision for supporting growth of the PE product IMHO) I suspect there is a decent chance some of the released A359 capacity is assigned Towards MAN (whether as additional rotations to the existing flight, a terminator or another transit route remains to be seen).
    Just throwing this out as an idea...

    I don't think MUC is doing particularly well in terms of yield and LH are also increasing from 5 to 6 weekly. I say this, as when I was recently looking for prices to DUS, flying SIN to MUC with an LH codeshare MUC-DUS was a cheaper option every day than flying direct to DUS on SQ. However, it is under a JV agreement so perhaps overall it is doing ok if LH are going 6x weekly.

    Is there a chance SQ might look at filling in the two missing days for MAN by rebirthing the MUC-MAN tag, in the same way they use MXP-BCN tags on certain days, or is the MUC option completely dead?

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SQ228 View Post
      Just throwing this out as an idea...

      I don't think MUC is doing particularly well in terms of yield and LH are also increasing from 5 to 6 weekly. I say this, as when I was recently looking for prices to DUS, flying SIN to MUC with an LH codeshare MUC-DUS was a cheaper option every day than flying direct to DUS on SQ. However, it is under a JV agreement so perhaps overall it is doing ok if LH are going 6x weekly.

      Is there a chance SQ might look at filling in the two missing days for MAN by rebirthing the MUC-MAN tag, in the same way they use MXP-BCN tags on certain days, or is the MUC option completely dead?
      There's a potential issue that the SIN-MAN gaps and MAN-SIN gaps don't align, since each craft takes a day to do the MAN-IAH cycle. IIRC the MXP-BCN tag suffered from this as well, in that some days there'd be two flights BCN-SIN and some days none..

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SQ228 View Post
        Just throwing this out as an idea...

        I don't think MUC is doing particularly well in terms of yield and LH are also increasing from 5 to 6 weekly. I say this, as when I was recently looking for prices to DUS, flying SIN to MUC with an LH codeshare MUC-DUS was a cheaper option every day than flying direct to DUS on SQ. However, it is under a JV agreement so perhaps overall it is doing ok if LH are going 6x weekly.

        Is there a chance SQ might look at filling in the two missing days for MAN by rebirthing the MUC-MAN tag, in the same way they use MXP-BCN tags on certain days, or is the MUC option completely dead?
        I think that is a legitimate question, and I'm certainly not going to shoot it down! I think the issue with this is twofold:

        1 - SQuelch's point is well made. A SIN-MUC-MAN service would fill in the gaps, but would need to be at least 4x weekly to fill in all the SIN-MAN and MAN-SIN gaps and would be uncompetitive against other one stop options.

        2 - MAN O&D traffic volume on the current MAN-SIN SQ51/52 is down by around 30% when compered to the final year of the SIN-MUC-MAN SQ 327/328 service. This is despite the underlying growth of long haul at MAN being 10% year on year. This is partly because the current service is 5x weekly and not daily, and a smaller aircraft is being used. In summary, there is likely to be a fairly large amount of latent demand here.


        Originally posted by SQuelch View Post
        There's a potential issue that the SIN-MAN gaps and MAN-SIN gaps don't align, since each craft takes a day to do the MAN-IAH cycle. IIRC the MXP-BCN tag suffered from this as well, in that some days there'd be two flights BCN-SIN and some days none..

        Agreed. As I see it, the options are:

        1 - additional rotations on SQ51/52 (SQ applied for 6x weekly but withdrew the slots).

        2 - another transit flight, which could be to a European destination or the USA.

        3 - a new SIN-MAN terminator service. This still has the issue you have described above, which could be mitigated if it was a night departure ex MAN.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Dobbo View Post
          There are a range of options at this point and we will work with them to deliver the best outcome for both parties.
          This statement contradicts the initial statement. That sentence keeps me thinking that the capacity will be cut or that they are looking into another waypoint for alternate days.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by SQ025 View Post
            This statement contradicts the initial statement. That sentence keeps me thinking that the capacity will be cut or that they are looking into another waypoint for alternate days.
            I don't see how "the airline is looking at several scenarios which could deliver passenger growth" leads you to believe capacity is likely to be cut?

            My reading of it is that the objective is to grow, but the correct option to deliver that growth is not clear.
            Last edited by Dobbo; 15 October 2018, 06:09 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Dobbo View Post
              I don't see how "the airline is looking at several scenarios which could deliver passenger growth" leads you to believe capacity is likely to be cut?
              I have quoted what I believe is opening any option available.

              I read in the statement that SQ is somehow committed to keep IAH on the map. But how they continue is, as you rightfully said, to be determined.

              The undertone indicates to me that other transit points between SIN and IAH may be under consideration. May not be bad for MAN as they could consider to increase frequency but cut the IAH leg (we will work with them to deliver the best outcome for both parties).

              Comment


              • Hm maybe something like 4x weekly SIN-MAN-IAH and 4x weekly SIN-MAN-ORD/IAD/MIA...?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by SQ025 View Post
                  I have quoted what I believe is opening any option available.

                  I read in the statement that SQ is somehow committed to keep IAH on the map. But how they continue is, as you rightfully said, to be determined.

                  The undertone indicates to me that other transit points between SIN and IAH may be under consideration. May not be bad for MAN as they could consider to increase frequency but cut the IAH leg (we will work with them to deliver the best outcome for both parties).
                  Ah - understood. We'll see what happens next - which may be wrapped up in a number of other factors including the possible release of LH configured A359s and SQ's future plans for serving the US market.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Unionruler View Post
                    Hm maybe something like 4x weekly SIN-MAN-IAH and 4x weekly SIN-MAN-ORD/IAD/MIA...?
                    I think this is possible, I'm not sure if any additional US routes could justify a non-stop so if SQ intends to expand its presence in the US via one-stops these options could be on the table.

                    Comment


                    • I believe that IAH would be better served via *A-Hub in Europe to tap from a feeder network from *A partner. ZRH, CPH, BRU and ARN currently have no direct flights to IAH.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Dobbo View Post
                        I think this is possible, I'm not sure if any additional US routes could justify a non-stop so if SQ intends to expand its presence in the US via one-stops these options could be on the table.
                        I'm just wondering this...

                        Does SQ have enough direct premium demand to split these two destinations entirely and run IAH as a non-stop?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by SQ228 View Post
                          I'm just wondering this...

                          Does SQ have enough direct premium demand to split these two destinations entirely and run IAH as a non-stop?
                          Based purely on passenger volumes using both sectors of SQ51/52, the answer is an unequivocal "no" in respect of IAH.

                          Circa 2,000 to 3,000 passengers use both sectors of the flight per month, roughly 32 to 48 PPDEW. Even if all of these passengers were in business class, which they won't be, this is plainly not sustainable.

                          This is not the same as the O&D between SIN and IAH as there are a number of non-SQ options between the city pair and/or for other onward journeys in North America and South East Asia. The question I don't know the answer to is whether:

                          1 - there is a theoretical, latent, market that might switch to a non-stop between SIN-IAH to make this viable (e.g. would it offer SQ a route into South America).

                          2 - whether they would actually switch.

                          I suspect the answer to question 1 is highly likely to be "no" (this makes the answer to question 2 irrelevant) but I don't have any good data to say this is anything more than a suspicion.

                          With respect to MAN, I also have no data on business class demand from MAN. What I would say is that SQ has served MAN for a significant period of time (I think in excess of 40 years?) during which point the overall market out of MAN has grown significantly whilst SQ has stayed reasonably stagnant. It's probably do-able, but MAN represents a good transit point for SQ into North America and I expect this strategy to continue in the short to mid term.
                          Last edited by Dobbo; 18 October 2018, 02:41 AM.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Dobbo View Post
                            Based purely on passenger volumes using both sectors of SQ51/52, the answer is an unequivocal "no" in respect of IAH.

                            Circa 2,000 to 3,000 passengers use both sectors of the flight per month, roughly 32 to 48 PPDEW. Even if all of these passengers were in business class, which they won't be, this is plainly not sustainable.

                            This is not the same as the O&D between SIN and IAH as there are a number of non-SQ options between the city pair and/or for other onward journeys in North America and South East Asia. The question I don't know the answer to is whether:

                            1 - there is a theoretical, latent, market that might switch to a non-stop between SIN-IAH to make this viable (e.g. would it offer SQ a route into South America).

                            2 - whether they would actually switch.

                            I suspect the answer to question 1 is highly likely to be "no" (this makes the answer to question 2 irrelevant) but I don't have any good data to say this is anything more than a suspicion.

                            With respect to MAN, I also have no data on business class demand from MAN. What I would say is that SQ has served MAN for a significant period of time (I think in excess of 40 years?) during which point the overall market out of MAN has grown significantly whilst SQ has stayed reasonably stagnant. It's probably do-able, but MAN represents a good transit point for SQ into North America and I expect this strategy to continue in the short to mid term.
                            Very thorough and reasoned.

                            Comment


                            • Hi All

                              A brief update on SQ's performance on this route for 2018.

                              Based on 5x weekly rotations on both sectors, overall capacity is circa 131,500 seats per annum.

                              On the SIN-MAN sector, 116,589 passengers travelled in 2018. This is almost exactly the same as 2017 (116,426) and represents a load factor of approximately 88.8%.

                              On the MAN-IAH sector, 95,401 passengers travelled. This is up from 91,275 passengers in 2017 and represents a load factor of approximately 72.5%.

                              Generally, this is an improved picture. Capacity on MAN-SIN is pretty tight, and there is likely to be a case to increase capacity here.

                              There is an option of increasing rotations of SIN-MAN-IAH, but the MAN-IAH sector does not really warrant this.


                              Another option might be to add another east coast transit route via MAN to get (say) 10x weekly between MAN-SIN. However, that would mean on three days a week there would be closely timed departures between SIN-MAN and vice versa. A 4x weekly SIN-MAN-SIN with an evening departure ex MAN might work, but I don't know if the demand is there.

                              I'd expect to hear something in 2019, but I probably said the same this time last year!

                              Comment


                              • Is there a security re-check at MAN for passengers flying IAH-MAN-SIN?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X