SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

fountainhall
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
Location: Bangkok
Liked: 123 times
Been liked: 316 times

#1 SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby fountainhall » Thu May 31, 2018 11:00 am

Ever longer flights seem to make a great deal of news. Last year there was the current longest - Doha to Auckland. More recently there was all the hoopla about the first non-stop on the Kangaroo route between Perth and London. Neither was ever the longest non-stop route, though. That accolade belonged to Singapore Airlines which for a few years operated Singapore to New York. At around 10,000 miles that still holds the record. SIA finally killed it when the all-business class gas-guzzling four engine A340s specially modified for the route failed to return a profit.

From October you can once again fly this route, this time on the new ultra long haul version of the twin engine A350. But it will cost you! SIA has again decided against having economy passengers on this route. Instead, it will have 67 business class sleeper seats and 94 in premium economy. The 19-hour flights will use Newark rather than JFK. A Premium Economy return ex-SIngapore will cost US$1,650. Business class return ex-Newark will set you back US$5010.

Not all analysts see this as a long term prospect, though.

Shukor Yusof, an analyst with aviation consultancy Endau Analytics, said it was unlikely SIA could make money from the new service.

"The global premium market has eroded," he told AFP. "Operating costs are higher on ultra-long-haul flights too, erasing any profits an airline might make."


https://www.nst.com.my/world/2018/05/37 ... est-flight

firecat69
Posts: 795
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 am
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 41 times

#2 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby firecat69 » Thu May 31, 2018 6:19 pm

Who knows? With all the money Trump gave to Corporations, They might just spring for their workers to at least make a non- stop in Premium Economy and some of the higher ranked executives in BC. After all time is money !

Of course the seat configuration in Premium Economy will determine the success. If all they are getting is 2-3 inches like many carriers , they may be destined for failure.

fountainhall
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
Location: Bangkok
Liked: 123 times
Been liked: 316 times

#3 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby fountainhall » Thu May 31, 2018 6:42 pm

SIA traditionally uses a pitch of 38" in Premium Economy against 32" at the back of the plane. Qantas increased economy seat pitch by one inch for its new Perth/London service. Perhaps SIA will add an inch or two for its New York flights, but that is mere speculation.

firecat69
Posts: 795
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 am
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 41 times

#4 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby firecat69 » Thu May 31, 2018 8:13 pm

Many airlines use that pitch but width rarely changes between Economy and Premium Economy,

Of course if you are tall pitch is important and if you Big width is more important. Often wondered why no airline tried to offer a wider seat and shave some inches off the pitch in order to get close or the same number of seats in Premium Economy?

User avatar
Jun
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Liked: 105 times
Been liked: 79 times

#5 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby Jun » Fri Jun 01, 2018 1:15 am

Unless I am mistaken, seat width usually goes up in Premium economy, although perhaps only by an inch.
So far, the width has always been OK for me in Premium Economy.

The 38" pitch is OK too. Any increase in pitch would only be of significant value if it were combined with more recline, to permit better sleep.

fountainhall
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
Location: Bangkok
Liked: 123 times
Been liked: 316 times

#6 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby fountainhall » Fri Jun 01, 2018 9:53 am

I can't speak for American carriers, but many other legacy carriers (except JAL) increase seat width in PE by at least 1 inch - even Air China. On Cathay Pacific's new A350's width is increased by 2 inches to 20" and pitch by 8" to 40" - about the most generous I can find, although Air France and Aeroflot also have a 20" width and EVA has 19.5". Perhaps to balance that, Cathay is reconfiguring its 777 economy seating - and they have 65 of those mostly long range aircraft. They have redesigned the seat with smaller armrests and added smaller aisles. So it will have one of the smallest seat widths at 17.2 inches. This allows them to squeeze in 10 across seating whereas most other carriers have 9 across. Fancy a New York/Hong Kong flight in those conditions?

firecat69
Posts: 795
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 am
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 41 times

#7 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby firecat69 » Fri Jun 01, 2018 6:49 pm

It really is dependent on the Airline . ANA and JP are a joke. Yes they give 2 inches more width but economy is 16". No Thanks!

Asiana which I happen to love in Business offers ridiculous 36" pitch and 18" width on the the A350. Most of the Chinese airlines are also terrible in what you get for your money in Premium Economy. KLM is terrible with 35" pitch and 17.5" width as are most European airlines .

Cathy Pacific and Singapore do seem to give quite a bit more then anyone else on certain airplanes but of course the question is, how much more do you have to pay.

I'm a private pilot as well as a world traveller some for business and a lot for personal enjoyment. IMHO Airline comfort and service has at best stayed even and mostly gone backwards one the last 50 years. With all the advances in certain segments of the world , Airline Comfort, Service, Food etc is last IMHO especially if you have to fly in the back of the airplane!

Oh I know there has been a small uptick in speed and range but when compared to advances in other segments of the economy , it is pitiful.

I fail to understand why the Concorde SST was not the beginning of an adventure in the skies instead of a failure.

User avatar
Jun
Posts: 1693
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:20 pm
Liked: 105 times
Been liked: 79 times

#8 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby Jun » Fri Jun 01, 2018 10:11 pm

firecat69 wrote:I fail to understand why the Concorde SST was not the beginning of an adventure in the skies instead of a failure.


1 Cost is still a major factor. Supersonic flight guzzles more fuel & therefore is expensive. When it comes down to it, most people were happy to pay less for a subsonic flight.
2 Countries don't like the noise from supersonic flight over land, so the number of routes was limited.
3 I don't recall the details, but I believe the US was also one of the countries not keen to have supersonic passenger flights. Of course, the US had the dominant sub-sonic air craft manufacturers at the time & Concorde was made in UK/France.

fountainhall
Posts: 1160
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:45 am
Location: Bangkok
Liked: 123 times
Been liked: 316 times

#9 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby fountainhall » Sat Jun 02, 2018 12:15 am

firecat69 wrote:It really is dependent on the Airline . ANA and JP are a joke. Yes they give 2 inches more width but economy is 16". No Thanks!

The statistics for JAL are not exactly correct. JAL has widths of between 17.3" up to 19" on its 777 fleet and between 17.5" and 18.9" on its 787s. None of its aircraft has 16". ANA is certainly less good. I'm not sure an inch actually makes much difference as I assume the armrests are narrower. Mind you, I'm not prepared to try it!

https://www.seatguru.com/charts/longhaul_economy.php

firecat69 wrote:IMHO Airline comfort and service has at best stayed even and mostly gone backwards one the last 50 years. With all the advances in certain segments of the world , Airline Comfort, Service, Food etc is last IMHO especially if you have to fly in the back of the airplane!

Oh I know there has been a small uptick in speed and range but when compared to advances in other segments of the economy , it is pitiful.

I fail to understand why the Concorde SST was not the beginning of an adventure in the skies instead of a failure.

Totally agree. When I first started flying 747s, if I was sitting at a window seat on an overnight flight, I could pass the two other passengers without disturbing them. Seat pitch then must have been around 38". And if my memory is not playing tricks on me, meals and wines were far better and more plentiful.

Jun wrote:1 Cost is still a major factor. Supersonic flight guzzles more fuel & therefore is expensive. When it comes down to it, most people were happy to pay less for a subsonic flight.
2 Countries don't like the noise from supersonic flight over land, so the number of routes was limited.
3 I don't recall the details, but I believe the US was also one of the countries not keen to have supersonic passenger flights. Of course, the US had the dominant sub-sonic air craft manufacturers at the time & Concorde was made in UK/France.

I reckon Concorde failed for two reasons - the fact that it was 1950s technology designed at a time when the oil price was $3.00, and the horrendous crash in Paris. It did land at JFK, Washington and Miami and had various other charters. But a joint venture between BA and Singapore Airlines for flights between London and Singapore did not last because, as Jun points out, countries would not permit the sonic boom over land. So with a fuel stop in the Gulf and supersonic only over the ocean, the time saving was minimal. But then Concorde was designed specifically for the transatlantic market with a top range of just 4,500 miles. The makers hoped that US airlines would buy it partly to compete with BA and Air France over the Atlantic and partly to use between the West Coast and Tokyo with a stop in Hawaii. Seeing the success of the early Concorde flights, Boeing rushed plans for a larger SST onto its drawing board. That got cancelled when the oil price rocketed in the early 1970s.

I flew it only once (I got an upgrade and it was only about 60% full). It really was not very comfortable inside with narrow seats, not much pitch and not much recline. Despite that I loved it!! The food and wines were certainly way better probably than the regular first class. But it was the time saving for top executives that made it work. Passengers arriving at JFK had a guarantee of not more than 15 minutes for Immigration and getting your bag after landing and then a complimentary limousine which meant you reached your hotel whilst a subsonic 747 that departed at the same time was still probably over Newfoundland!

firecat69
Posts: 795
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 7:29 am
Liked: 1 time
Been liked: 41 times

#10 Re: SIA to Relaunch New York/Singapore Route

Postby firecat69 » Sat Jun 02, 2018 2:16 am

It is easy to forget that the last Concorde flight was 15 years ago. Did it guzzle fuel at the time of course For the most part Jet Fuel was considerably more expensive back then. The argument about SS flight over land makes no sense to me. The SST was conceived for flight over water for the majority of the flight. It was not for flights from NYC- LAX or London- Rome .

Everyone agrees that the plane was scrapped mainly because of the Crash. Did man stop trying to go into space when there was a crash?

Imagine when we look at rockets being sent into space by private operators and returning significant parts back to land and be used again. 15 years ago did anyone foresee that.

If the genius of engineers etc, had continued to work on the SST, I think some of the problems would have been corrected and we truly would have had a gigantic leap in Air Travel.

Instead we have gone essentially nowhere or in some respects backwards except for increase competition by Government assisted airlines and thus in some cases lower fares.

Just does not seem enough at least to me!


Return to “Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RichLB and 25 guests