Technical route analysis for SQ to South America

[willzzz88]

With SQ's new flights to GRU here's what I've been thinking for a while:
SQ hub is in SIN which is as far as you can get from South America (SCL, GIG, GRU, EZE, etc…):
There are 4 routing SQ in theory can take from SIN to South America and only three of them are feasible:
1. The obvious one: Via North America:
Advantages: The biggest travel market from South America
Disadvantages: Lots of competition and have to go through US/CAN DHS/CASTA and VISA problems for certain travelers without VWP. Also 5th freedom issues.

Market: Already exists with multiple dailies on the North America incumbents from their respective hubs to all the airports in South America. For SQ this is a no-no.

2. The second obvious one: Via Europe:
Advantages: The second biggest travel market from South America (historical), no immigration/customs needed for transit/connecting passengers
Disadvantages: Lots of competition but SQ has been SEMI-successful in this market to North America with the FRA-JFK tag-on. Again 5th freedom issues.

Market: This is the correct market for SQ to transit (BCN already established, infrastructure there) because the other two routings below require specialized aircraft and other things dominated by niche players (see below).

3. Via Oceania (Australia/New Zealand)
Advantages: Lack of competition, capacity is increasingly growing from Oceania to South America. VERY PROFITABLE route (LAN just boosted SCL-AKL-SYD to daily with the A343 and lie-flat seats on their entire A340 fleet serving this route and to the EU) with easy connections to Asia.
Disadvantages: (Technical): The airspace routing between New Zealand and South America requires 4-engine aircraft as there is ETOPS problems due to lack of diversionary airports (Boeing/Airbus is working on this I hear with the new ETOPS standards and the B787/B777 and A350). If SQ were to fly this, the ONLY aircraft in their fleet that can do this is the A345 and/or A346 is they buy some (in addition to the old/new B744 and/or B748 but that would be initial capacity over-kill) due to quad/4-engine requirements to cross the South Pacific Ocean.
Existing routings over the South Pacific Ocean by Airlines (Oceania and South American):
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=EZE-AKL...D&MS=wls&DU=km
Distances
From To Initial
Heading Distance
2 segment path: 12498 km
EZE (34°49'20"S 58°32'09"W) AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) 219.8° (SW) 10334 km
AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) SYD (33°56'46"S 151°10'38"E) 272.0° (W) 2164 km
2 segment path: 11838 km
SCL (33°23'35"S 70°47'09"W) AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) 226.7° (SW) 9674 km
AKL (37°00'29"S 174°47'30"E) SYD (33°56'46"S 151°10'38"E) 272.0° (W) 2164 km
EZE (34°49'20"S 58°32'09"W)
SYD (33°56'46"S 151°10'38"E) 205.3° (SW) 11789 km

Total: 36125 km

SCL-AKL-SYD is flown by LAN DAILY now and is HIGHLY PROFITABLE I HEAR with the A343 full-payload (10000km fully-loaded AKL-SCL!). They are the ONLY airline on this route with lie-flat seats in addition to Qantas crossing the South Pacific Ocean from New Zealand to South America. Their hub in SCL on the West Coast of South America allows the highest payload on the quad-engine A340 with only 9674km as the crow flies for AKL-SCL allowing them to carry a-lot of cargo in transit from Asia transiting Auckland/Sydney to Santiago in South America. Their hub in Santiago allows connections to ALL the destinations in South America.
EZE-AKL-SYD is flown by Aerolinas Argentina’s 5x a week currently now that the economy has recovered with the A342. They use the oldest aircraft and the company has limited resources. They fly this because the profit it brings (again LACK OF COMPETITION in the South Pacific to South America). They were thinking of buying the A345/6 in order to fly EZE-SYD direct like Qantas do with the B744.
EZE-SYD direct is flown by Qantas 3x a week. Qantas says they have low-loads on this route by I believe they haven’t been marketing this properly. Qantas can easily fix this by:
1. Adjusting the timings of this flight for faster connections with Asia arrivals/departures with the arrival/departure of this flight allowing seamless connections (e.g.): SIN-SYD-EZE; HKG-SYD-EZE; NRT-SYD-EZE and reverse.
2. Market this more! Direct from Australia trans-Antarctic polar to South America baby! Faster faster faster than transiting via Auckland!
For Air NZ: When are you going to get some 4-engine aircraft or the ETOPS approvals to fly direct to South America from your hub in AKL? Awesome connecting traffic from South America to Asia via NZ too.

4 . Via South Africa: Advantages: Limited market/competition like above, limited growth factors though a few airlines fly this e.g. Malaysia Airlines KUL-CPT-EZE 2x a week with the B744 (MH says they are limited by the SA authorities on this route as they want to increase capacity, again this is true). Depending on where in Asia this maybe even faster than the above route. Connections already exist with Star Alliance.
Disadvantages: Lack of profitability/passengers, also massive 5th freedom issues with the S.A. gov’t.
Existing routings over the South Atlantic Ocean by Airlines (South African and South American):
JNB-GRU: 11x weekly by South African (SA).
JNB-EZE: 3x weekly by SA.
CPT-EZE: 2x weekly by MH (continuation of KUL-CPT-EZE).
And the winner is TAAG Angola (Ok I know who in their right mind would this fly African airline considering they were just banned in the EU with parts falling off their 777’s):
LAD-GRU: 4x weekly when they were operating
LAD-GIG: 3x weekly when they were operating
TAAG mainly operates this route due to common language differences (Portuguese due to similar colonialization in history) and increasing immigration to South America from Angola (and the booming Angolese economy due to the oil resources there).
Picture: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=JNB-GRU...G&MS=wls&DU=km
The South Atlantic crossing ALSO has ETOPS problems but not as much as the South Pacific route from Oceania due to diversion airports of some military islands in the north. TAAG when they were operating operate 777’s over the south Atlantic by flying a little more northern route (+15/30 minutes rumored). SA with their A340’s have no problem being quad-engines.
Comments, suggestions?

[9V-SIA]

Welcome to SQTalk willzzz88.

Nice first post.

I have been doing my homework too with the intention of visiting Machu Picchu.

My routing:

SIN-BCN-GRU-LIM-CUZ.

Then 4 hour train ride to Machu Picchu.

I like flying SQ as near to my destination as I can before switching.

Might now consider SIN-AKL-LIM ( one less stop )

[willzzz88]

Dude check this out for flight LA800/1 (SCL-AKL-SYD daily) on the A343E from someone who has taken the flight:



There ARE LIMITATIONS OF ETOPS IN THE WORLD YOU KNOW SQ! There's Rio (some island in Argentina for diversion) and PPT and IPC (Easter Island, Chile, amazing, very good holiday destination!).

LAN also flies SCL-IPC-PPT 2x a week or something. (IPC is Easter Island, Chilean territory).

I am Asian/Chinese-American in the US but probably my next holiday is probably South America if I can get Spanish right and maybe back to Asia/Oceania if I have the budget $$$.

[SQflyergirl]

I've gone and come back via all 4 options you mentioned.

Any which way you look at it - it's VERY VERY long. and Very tiring.

[willzzz88]

Oh and I forgot about the Middle East heavies. Emirates found South America very profitable and a new connection point between South America and Asia instead of the traditional routes by Oceania/North America/Europe/South Africa by using their hub in DXB. EK is flying DXB-GRU DAILY now with the 77W (777-300ER) so Boeing has definetly solved the South Atlantic crossing problem of ETOPS (it overflies Africa completely and then does the South Atlantic crossing using Boeing's charts from Nigera/Ghana to Brasilian's airspace and Sao Paulo).

QR saw EK's massive profits on the DXB-GRU daily route (Upgaged from 77L to 77W) so they started DOH-GRU-EZE with the 77L. I hear the GRU-EZE tag-on was empty but DOH-GRU profitable. Both EK and QR are profiting on the cargo revenues. The range of DXB/DOH-GRU is similar to DXB-SYD (wee bit longer) but awesome for the 777-300ER (record breaker Boeing <3s the 77W and being American so do I due to mainly the FUEL EFFICIENCIES!).
See this: http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=DXB-GRU...G&MS=wls&DU=km

DXB-GIG is SHORTER THAN DXB-SYD and DXB-GRU is a wee bit longer. Hot damn DXB is well positioning in like the MIDDLE OF THE WORLD to start every f***king non-stop to every continent (and they have achieved that with DXB-SFO/LAX trans-polar and sometimes DXB-IAH!).


Remember Rio de Janeiro in Brasil is hosting the World Cup 2016! Great growth success for Brasil and South America/Latin America in general (trade tied with the US/Canada and Europe and incrasingly Asia) as a BRIC and everything else. (And that's a Goldman Sach's word they invented in NYC lol...).

With Oceania and South America traffic growth I bet South Pacific/Atlantic ETOPS will grow like the North Atlantic/Pacific currently with the ETOPS standards.

[B727]

Remember Rio de Janeiro in Brasil is hosting the World Cup 2016! Great growth success for Brasil and South America/Latin America in general (trade tied with the US/Canada and Europe and incrasingly Asia) as a BRIC and everything else. (And that's a Goldman Sach's word they invented in NYC lol...)

Don't forget BRIC is soon to become BRICS with the impending entry of South Africa

Although I doubt SA will ever want to see SQ, in spite of being a fellow *A carrier, fly out of either JNB or CPT to South America, although a case could be made for services linking CPT and GIG being that no carrier currently serves that route and SA will benefit from all the traffic it could carry to/from other African destinations off/on to an SQ flight.

Is SQ still limited to 3x weekly passenger flights into GRU or has that been superseded by the recent open skies agreement with Brasil?

And while we're on the subject of BRIC, SQ and AI could beat the Gulf carriers at their own game by linking BOM and GRU although that might mean reconfiguring some A345s into two/three-class cabins again and/or using AI's 77Ls

[SliverKris]

Very interesting analysis.

Channeling the view to MH's operation to EZE via CPT, the current 2 weekly B744 route is doing very well but as you mentioned, MH's application to add 1 more weekly service was turned down by the South African side. I do hope something is being initiated to revise the bilateral agreements between Malaysia and South Africa with regards to this matter.

Just a bit of a trivia, the current EZE service by MH was the brainchild of the former Premier Tun Dr. Mahathir and that the original routing was KUL-JNB-CPT-EZE-SCL vv. But alas, the EZE-SCL tag-on was never materialised and that JNB was delinked from the route and is currently having its own dedicated service from KUL 3 weekly B772.

Among keen MH observers, there is a big question on what type of aircraft that MH is going to deploy to this route after 2012. Everyone knows that MH has ordered 6 A380s and that these aircrafts are to replace the existing B744s. Everyone knows that EZE can only be served by a quad due to ETOPS ruling. MH also has announced that the A380s are destined for 2 daily service to LHR and 1 daily service to SYD. If these were the only routes for the A380s, wouldn't there be extra A380s for the 2 weekly mission to EZE? If the entire B744 fleet is going to be retired (as per what MH has been telling), EZE will definitely going to get the A380 as MH does not have any other suitable aircraft to do the mission.

In the 1990s, MH has another long route to MEX. This route was originally planned as KUL-NRT-LAX-MEX-LIM vv using B744, but the MEX-LIM tag-on was never materialised, NRT was replaced by TPE in favour of daily Transpacific frequency and that the LAX-MEX tag-on was revoked by the Mexican government after several years of service to protect their national airlines. Currently, the route is being operated as KUL-TPE-LAX vv 3 weekly B772.

Remember Rio de Janeiro in Brasil is hosting the World Cup 2016!

Just a bit of a correction, Rio will host the FIFA World Cup in 2014 and the Summer Olympics in 2016.

[willzzz88]

Ah cool. SliverKris are you Malaysian? As an Chinese-American the one thing I would actually hope for it non-stops to south-east Asia direct from North America (West Coast) as I maybe doing that in the future for business. MH should do KUL-LAX/SFO non-stop and SQ SIN-LAX/SFO non-stop in the future getting rid of the immediate stops in north-east Asia due to heightened competition. Since the daily A345 business is doing well why doesn't SQ add a daily SIN-SFO!? SQ should be buying some 77Ls for the non-stops in the North pacific.

[willzzz88]

You know my other thought was AKL-GRU which is 12,045km:
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=AKL-GRU&MS=wls&DU=km
LAN should fly AKL-GRU which would give it MASSIVE advantage in connections to Asia via AKL. Both the A343X/E and A345/6 can do this route FULL PAYLOAD! Maybe SQ should buy more A345E's from Airbus and fly SIN-AKL-GRU!? That would be a cool route through the south Atlantic crossing. (SQ can do AKL-GRU FULL PAYLOAD with their A345's).

[zvezda]

Maybe SQ should buy more A345E's from Airbus and fly SIN-AKL-GRU!?

SQ are not very happy with their A340-500s are certainly not going to buy any more of them. That purchase, rather than waiting two years for the 777-200LR, is widely considered one of Chew's fleet planning blunders.

[Jumbojet Lover]

SQ are not very happy with their A340-500s are certainly not going to buy any more of them. That purchase, rather than waiting two years for the 777-200LR, is widely considered one of Chew's fleet planning blunders.

I thought both planes were on the table but the A345 was more attractive to SQ than the Boeing 777-200LR. Was it really because the A345 was available earlier? Not because of ETOPS?

[9V-JKL]

I thought both planes were on the table but the A345 was more attractive to SQ than the Boeing 777-200LR. Was it really because the A345 was available earlier? Not because of ETOPS?

Yes. When the A345 was offered to SQ, Boeing did not have a 77L planned at that time yet

[zvezda]

I thought both planes were on the table but the A345 was more attractive to SQ than the Boeing 777-200LR. Was it really because the A345 was available earlier? Not because of ETOPS?

The 777 already had ETOPS180 and probably ETOPS207 at the time, though I think SQ had only ETOPS180. Anyway, ETOPS180 is ok for the routes SQ intended to fly, though this may have been a factor in SQ's decision.

Yes. When the A345 was offered to SQ, Boeing did not have a 77L planned at that time yet

When SQ ordered the A340-500s, the 777-200LR was planned but not launched yet. SQ knew about it and didn't want to wait.

[coldastone72]

Err..think u shld not mention names my fren..seems u got bad grievances with ** company...obvious with your posts u are from SQ...

[MAN Flyer]

Err..think u shld not mention names my fren..seems u got bad grievances with ** company...obvious with your posts u are from SQ...

While I despise text speak as it just makes people look silly, this post is just funny.