End of the nonstops to LAX & EWR on the A345

[SQfanatic]

That's what I thought of before. But it would still limit the timing choice to some level though, especially since many are coming from many different parts of Asia. Especially some flights from India have only one flight coming in at 5/6am. Although, it benefits LAX, the sad part is that many won't have a choice of coming back in the evening either.

Either way, it's shocking that LAX flights are down from 3 to 1 now. I just wonder why they can't reinstate the evening flight via TPE or find another high demand stopover place that can draw lots of demand en-route to LAX. EWR could go via HKG or another place that can draw lots of demand.

[SMK77]

Am not sure what load factor that figure is based on. Presumably it would be different if there's only one pax vs a hundred.

The current spot price for jet in Singapore is US$126 per barrel which converts to US$995 per metric ton - let's just round to US$1000. So assuming the figure of 1.5 metric ton per pax is correct, then the total cost fuel per pax is approximately US$1,500. A flight in Dec SIN-EWR now costs S$12,500 return or approximately US$5,081 one-way at today's exchange rate. So it works out that the cost of fuel is about 30% of the cost of the ticket. Rough, rough. It would be interesting to find out what a flight like SIN-EWR actually consumes.

Okay, agreed on 3,000 USD for fuel on the return flight.

Disagree on the income:

D return from Singapore is 6,139 USD and that's just the sticker price. Most tickets are sold to corporates with deep discounts. Including tax, SQ might make 6,000 USD on the average ticket. 50% of that money goes into fuel.

If the seatload is less than 100%, fuel is even more. Not viable at all.

[9V-SIA]

Why are people so hung up on the 345? One of the pilots told me they are burning 1,500 kg of fuel per person for SIN-EWR. With kerosine getting more and more expensive, no one will be willing to pay for the price SQ would have to charge to make the whole thing profitable.

Unless you fly regularly SIN- EWR or LAX, you probably don't appreciate the convenience of these flights.

This is a separate issue from whether SQ makes money on the planes or not.

It made money when oil was $37 per barrel. What's oil price now?

2008 GFC probably was the nail in the coffin for this flight. Fewer bankers. Fewer banks! Smaller travel budgets.

[SQfanatic]

Well, a friend of mine who lives near EWR hopes that eventually something can be done about the route. Hopefully they'll have a different route to EWR with a stopover. As for LAX, who knows. It's highly profitable. One A380 and one 77W can do the job since SQ doesn't have 744s anymore.

Years ago (maybe a year after the A345 N/S routes were launched to NA), I was dreaming at one point that SFO would get a N/S A345 if possible. Sadly, never happened. My bad if I am sounding offensive, but the moment I found out online that all their A345s were fitted with all J-class seats, I knew something was wrong and knew demand would drop, especially a buddy of mine said he can't afford to fly J. He misses the economy class so much on that aircraft. If they solved that issue of putting Y and J seats on the flight, it wouldn't have been a problem.

[HUGE AL]

I smell a "Last To Journey - A340-500 - SQ22/21" in the offing.

[lingua101]

May be it is time to speculate sin-tpe-jfk route again?

Or can sq resume sin-tpe-lax?

[SQ Queen]

May be it is time to speculate sin-tpe-jfk route again?

Or can sq resume sin-tpe-lax?

Time for SQ to pull out from their hat, the hard won SIN-MXP-NYC rights imo.

[SQfanatic]

I think so. I hope SQ doesn't stick with just 1 daily flight to LAX for so long. And hopefully they'll figure the EWR option out.

[9V-JKL]

Thinking a bit more...

IF SQ intends to maintain nonstops to the US with current aircraft then the 77W probably can do the LAX trip.

Case in point is EK's 77W to LAX. While that trip is 400miles less, EK flies that bird with 336pax (22Y seats not sold as payload restriction). SQ's 77Ws are @ 278 seats and that's 58 seats less than EK. Assuming 100kg/pax inclusive of bags/catering, that's 5.8MT less than EK. Assuming both SQ/EK's 77Ws weigh the same

Taking the highest load factor from the past 6 months of 89.2% (http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/...statistics.jsp if you want to question my data source), that's 30 empty seats. Assuming again 100kg//pax, that's another 3MT of payload reduction.

With a 8.8MT reduction in payload vs EK despite a 400mile increase, I think it MAY work out...

[CarbonMan]

Thinking a bit more...

IF SQ intends to maintain nonstops to the US with current aircraft then the 77W probably can do the LAX trip.

Case in point is EK's 77W to LAX. While that trip is 400miles less, EK flies that bird with 336pax (22Y seats not sold as payload restriction). SQ's 77Ws are @ 278 seats and that's 58 seats less than EK. Assuming 100kg/pax inclusive of bags/catering, that's 5.8MT less than EK. Assuming both SQ/EK's 77Ws weigh the same

Taking the highest load factor from the past 6 months of 89.2% (http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/...statistics.jsp if you want to question my data source), that's 30 empty seats. Assuming again 100kg//pax, that's another 3MT of payload reduction.

With a 8.8MT reduction in payload vs EK despite a 400mile increase, I think it MAY work out...

With ETOPS restrictions, it may be a bit more than 400 miles (which in itself an extra 45mins flight time, more or less). It may be possible on the way there but on the way back, with a headwind, it may be borderline.

My spanner-in-the-works question is, if it was technically possible, why haven't SQ started doing it.

[ycp81]

Previously when SQ sended its A345s for maintenance, it used B772ER on the non-stop SIN-LAX sector, which can be easily performed with the strong tailwinds across the pacific. However on the return sector, with headwinds and probably coupled with ETOPS, the B772ER needed a tech stopover in Taipei. With the B77W having almost similar range as the B772ER, I guess the situation would be similar.

[9V-JKL]

ETOPS 180 does not impact

[9V-JKL]

My spanner-in-the-works question is, if it was technically possible, why haven't SQ started doing it.

Because they still have the A345s. Come Q4 2013, different story...

[MAN Flyer]

IF SQ intends to maintain nonstops to the US ...

Unless the price of oil drops significantly I don't think they are that interested in operating the ULH's. I am not sure what the price of oil was when they originally ordered the A345's to do the nonstops, but I bet it was significantly less than what it is now. I accept that a 777 that could do it (whether LR or whatever) more economically than the four holers, but I am not sure it is enough for them to bother with oil as it is.

[whanafi]

This also means the end to convenient connections to Montreal. There are Air Canada flights to EWR and LaGuardia, but nothing to JFK.

I have two children studying in Canada - the one in Vancouver has to fly Cathay, and the one in Montreal was taking the EWR flight.

I can accept stopping in Europe, but not leaving from the zoo that is JFK.