Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Confirmed: SQ to restart SQ21/22 to EWR

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

  • Originally posted by yuuka_miya View Post
    LAX is again up for Spontaneous Escapes - it makes me wonder whether 10x weekly on the ULR is too much capacity especially given PE fares are still pretty low. Could one flight go to the regular A350 with blocking seats?

    I seem to remember United dropped it because their bookings were quite bad.
    I don't know if bookings were quite bad but it was apparently not economically feasible due to the high number of blocked seats to make the flight work on the 787-9 from LAX.

    It's possible that SQ's 10x weekly capacity is necessary for Business but PE isn't full so they're chasing additional revenue.

    Comment


    • fairly sure its economically feasible to use a A350ER do its SIN-LAX-SIN nonstop flights even with the LAX-SIN sector bocking some seats. As the A350ER is a 253 seater aircraft whilst the ULR has only 161 seats. Even if the A350 long haul flies with 220 pax from its 253 pax capacity, it should be economically feasible to do so. It's even better for the A350ER to do the SIN-SFO non-stop.
      Last edited by flyguy; 20 March 2019, 10:24 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by flyguy View Post
        fairly sure its economically feasible to use a A350ER do its SIN-LAX-SIN nonstop flights even with the LAX-SIN sector bocking some seats. As the A350ER is a 253 seater aircraft whilst the ULR has only 161 seats. Even if the A350 long haul flies with 220 pax from its 253 pax capacity, it should be economically feasible to do so. It's even better for the A350ER to do the SIN-SFO non-stop.
        Is there a new A350 variant with the 'ER' designation? It's not just a reduction of capacity to fly further, but also the fact that the A350-900ULR has a specially configured fuel system built into the aircraft that extends the range.

        Plus you've overlooked the Business Class (J) side of the equation. The ULR configured aircraft has 67 J seats while the standard long-haul A350-900 only has 42. Assume for a second your 'A350ER' can make LAX-SIN with blocked seats in Economy, you're still missing out on potentially 25 high-yielding J seats.

        Comment


        • The A350ER i refered to is actually the A350-900 which some do refer it a ER version. Yes altho the ULR has 25 more J seats but not sure of the average load factor and the PEY behind on the ULR is reportedly hard to sell then overall its also not good.

          Comment


          • I guess someone with expertflyer access may be able to provide a definite answer, but having to price J class on SQ36 for Spontaneous Escapes back in Feb doesn't sound very good to me in that cabin either...

            If the standard A350 can make LAX while eating the seat blocking penalty, then maybe a 3x weekly ORD or something might be a better use of a ULR frame.
            an infrastructure geek

            Comment


            • And think for SIN-SFO-SIN, SIA could have use its A359 as its within its range and free up the 350ULR for longer new routes. The PEY fares to US now is only marginally a tad higher than ey fares only.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by flyguy View Post
                The A350ER i refered to is actually the A350-900 which some do refer it a ER version. Yes altho the ULR has 25 more J seats but not sure of the average load factor and the PEY behind on the ULR is reportedly hard to sell then overall its also not good.
                Are you sure you're not referring to the 777-300ER? It's not like the baseline A350 version has less range and there's an "Extended Range" version. Besides, "ER" is Boeing nomenclature for longer range versions of the 747, 777, 767 for example; Airbus would never use it. Anyway I work in aviation and I can assure you no one refers to the A350 as A350ER.

                Originally posted by flyguy View Post
                And think for SIN-SFO-SIN, SIA could have use its A359 as its within its range and free up the 350ULR for longer new routes. The PEY fares to US now is only marginally a tad higher than ey fares only.
                I think new routes present higher risk for SQ, especially for ultra-long haul, so they're playing safe with established markets for now. They'd have to discount even more as a new entrant to whichever market they start. As much as I would have loved to see SQ fly the ULR to Toronto and Chicago, it would surprise me if they did just that.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by flyguy View Post
                  The A350ER i refered to is actually the A350-900 which some do refer it a ER version. Yes altho the ULR has 25 more J seats but not sure of the average load factor and the PEY behind on the ULR is reportedly hard to sell then overall its also not good.
                  SQ is using the base A359 version. There is a new A359HGW version which is used currently by Philippines Airlines on MNL-JFK non-stop The HGW version has slight payload improvements over the base version, but not as much range as the ULR. If SQ uses the HGW version with existing base version layout, there will be less/no restrictions in operating sin-lax vv non-stop with full pax load.
                  My past and future travels

                  My Travel Map

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by yuuka_miya View Post
                    If the standard A350 can make LAX while eating the seat blocking penalty, then maybe a 3x weekly ORD or something might be a better use of a ULR frame.
                    I'm very sure SQ actually took 7 frames with the intention of restarting ORD and/or YYZ. And then UA and/or AC simply stonewalled their approach for codeshares.

                    3x weekly doesn't work when you want business traffic, but 5x weekly may not either on pure O&D.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by ycp81 View Post
                      SQ is using the base A359 version. There is a new A359HGW version which is used currently by Philippines Airlines on MNL-JFK non-stop The HGW version has slight payload improvements over the base version, but not as much range as the ULR. If SQ uses the HGW version with existing base version layout, there will be less/no restrictions in operating sin-lax vv non-stop with full pax load.
                      https://centreforaviation.com/analys...ustomer-431110

                      SQ is using the 275t version for the regular long range A350. There is a base 268t which was the earliest version. The distance between LAX and SFO is less than 300nm, so the 350nm increase in range for the 280t vs the 275t version will more than cover that. But I am not sure they want to. They increased flights to SFO with the ULR when the usual A350 could do it quite comfortably. This could indicate that the demand is at the front of the cabin?

                      Comment


                      • Next week I am booked on SQ 22, which has an eta at EWR of 6:00am. I’m connecting to Savannah, GA on UA, currently booked on the 2:00pm connection. That’s a long layover. Any recommendations on a hotel for a rest near the airport? There isn’t an airport hotel in the terminal somewhere right?

                        There’s also a 7:45am EWR-SAV connecting flight, but I had figured maybe too tight for the connection, what with clearing immigration and then waiting for bags and switching terminals and clearing security again. But at the same time, I see SQ22 often arrives ahead of schedule, so maybe this connection could work? Any opinions out there on gambling on making this tight connection? Take the gamble, with bags, or with cabin bags only?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Short Final View Post
                          Next week I am booked on SQ 22, which has an eta at EWR of 6:00am. I’m connecting to Savannah, GA on UA, currently booked on the 2:00pm connection. That’s a long layover. Any recommendations on a hotel for a rest near the airport? There isn’t an airport hotel in the terminal somewhere right?

                          There’s also a 7:45am EWR-SAV connecting flight, but I had figured maybe too tight for the connection, what with clearing immigration and then waiting for bags and switching terminals and clearing security again. But at the same time, I see SQ22 often arrives ahead of schedule, so maybe this connection could work? Any opinions out there on gambling on making this tight connection? Take the gamble, with bags, or with cabin bags only?
                          Not much of a wait when I was there a month ago. I made a 8:30am connection out of Terminal C, with enough time for a leisurely breakfast. SQ22 is the only flight that clears CBP at that time of the day in Terminal B, I think. I've been using this website to estimate wait times at various airports, and generally, it's been fairly accurate:

                          https://awt.cbp.gov/

                          The only thing to worry about is the Airtrain, which seems to be down too often....almost missed my flight back last week because of that. But you can easily walk from Terminal B to C on the arrivals level if it comes to that.

                          There are no hotels attached to the airport, but plenty within a short shuttle ride. I'd book a dayroom via Hotelsbyday or Dayuse.

                          If it were me, I'd gamble taking the 7:45 connection. With bags, if SQ is able to tag it all the way to SAV, and without, if not.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Short Final View Post
                            Next week I am booked on SQ 22, which has an eta at EWR of 6:00am. I’m connecting to Savannah, GA on UA, currently booked on the 2:00pm connection. That’s a long layover. Any recommendations on a hotel for a rest near the airport? There isn’t an airport hotel in the terminal somewhere right?

                            There’s also a 7:45am EWR-SAV connecting flight, but I had figured maybe too tight for the connection, what with clearing immigration and then waiting for bags and switching terminals and clearing security again. But at the same time, I see SQ22 often arrives ahead of schedule, so maybe this connection could work? Any opinions out there on gambling on making this tight connection? Take the gamble, with bags, or with cabin bags only?
                            Would you consider going to the United lounge instead? If you are not in Business/First you can pay a fee at the door to enter.

                            There are no hotels that connects directly to EWR, but here are plenty in the vicinity that connects to the airport Air Train station (P4) by shuttle. Consider that you would need time to take the shuttle to and fro, wait for check in/ check out and all the hassle, if you can find one that offers half day or hourly rates.

                            SQ22 is seldom late but it is seldom too early either. That leaves you with about 2 hours connecting if you want to be on the 0745. I did it once, and took about an hour and a half from touch down and collecting bags to arriving at the connecting flight gate in another terminal with light crowds. So 2 hours might be tight.

                            Happy flying.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Short Final View Post
                              Next week I am booked on SQ 22, which has an eta at EWR of 6:00am. I’m connecting to Savannah, GA on UA, currently booked on the 2:00pm connection. That’s a long layover. Any recommendations on a hotel for a rest near the airport? There isn’t an airport hotel in the terminal somewhere right?

                              There’s also a 7:45am EWR-SAV connecting flight, but I had figured maybe too tight for the connection, what with clearing immigration and then waiting for bags and switching terminals and clearing security again. But at the same time, I see SQ22 often arrives ahead of schedule, so maybe this connection could work? Any opinions out there on gambling on making this tight connection? Take the gamble, with bags, or with cabin bags only?
                              Based on a sample size of three in my case, you would have made this connection easily twice and once with little time to spare. My connecting flight usually departs around 9am from a different terminal, and that has thus far given me way too much time to kill. This is predicated on your SQ flight being on time.

                              If your bags cannot be checked through all the way, it may start to get tight, and I doubt you can get a single ticket issued with such a short connect time. The MCT for international to domestic at EWR is 3 hours I think, so having a separate ticket means you will not be protected in case you're late.

                              Two out of three times immigration has been very fast with essentially no wait. The third time we landed after the LY flight from TLV, and the wait at immigration was almost an hour. Still enough time to make it in your case, but getting very tight especially if you need to check bags in (rather than re-check after picking them up).

                              Comment


                              • Actually if is on the same airline, even if booked on the later flight, if reach early, can possibly asked to be uplifted on the earlier flight if there’s space?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X