Would you fly SQ to US?

[dajop]

The second part of a poll on whether Australian govt should allow SQ to fly to US.

 

[serfty]

You should have put in as an option "Depends on which carrier provides the best benefits".

This would be based on a combination of issues such as Cost, FF program, Lounge Access & scheduling.

I would expect the fares for all carriers to generally decrease if SQ are given access to the route.

At the moment, my answer is QF; but that may change in the future.

 

[straitman]

You should have put in as an option "Depends on which carrier provides the best benefits".

I agree entirely, although I'm a bit worried about being associated with your logo serfty :!:

 

[NM]

You should have put in as an option "Depends on which carrier provides the best benefits".

This would be based on a combination of issues such as Cost, FF program, Lounge Access & scheduling.

But we already know the answers to most of these questions. I think it is fair to assume pricing will initially be very similar to QF's current pricing with some incentive specials in economy. I would not expect to see much difference in premium cabins initially as they just scoop up the *A flyers and will have limited premium capacity to commence with.

We know what lounge facilities SQ and QF have in both locations as they both currently operate at both locations. Similarly we know what their FF programs offer.

Schedules for SQ won't be too dissimilar to QF. Schedules between SYD and LAX are set to fit between curfews. There is no point departing SYD earlier than 11:30am or you get into LAX too early (6am). Any later SYD departure than 4pm and you arrive too late for US connections.

Similarly, if you don't depart LAX before 1pm, you can't leave until after 9pm or you will be waiting for SYD curfew to lift. And departures before 1pm don't permit connecitons from other US (especially east coast) origins.

Given that SQ will only be starting with one flight, probably hoping to grow to two with the aim of making it an A380 route, they will be relying on UA feeds into LAX or SFO (whichever they choose to use) so will need to schedule accordingly. So expect a mid morning departure from SYD and an early morning arrival into LAX/SFO. And expect a late evening departure from LAX for early arrival into SYD.

 

[cssaus]

I don't know if the A380 can do it from Sydney but an SIA Flt from SYD to NYC would be nice!

 

[NM]

I don't know if the A380 can do it from Sydney but an SIA Flt from SYD to NYC would be nice!

No, SYD-JFK is just under 10,000 miles (8,650nm), and the planned range for the initial A380 model is 9,200 miles (8,000nm). It remains to be seen if they are able to achieve that planned range with a load of 490 pax (SQ initial config) or 501 pax (QF initial config). I assume the AB planned range is with a full load of 555 pax, but of course the cabin amenity weights will vary between operators so the pax count is probably not an indication of zero-fuel weight.

 

[redrat]

Doesn't anyone ever worry about the fact that SQ only maintains new aircraft and thus never gets the experience that QF LAME's have dealing with more mature aircraft?
Great service in the aircraft but not necessarily to the aircraft.

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Doesn't anyone ever worry about the fact that SQ only maintains new aircraft and thus never gets the experience that QF LAME's have dealing with more mature aircraft?
Great service in the aircraft but not necessarily to the aircraft.

Huh? So young fleet age is now a disadvantage?

 

[shillard]

I can see the media campaign two years after SQ launching a SYD-LAX service:


"Singapore Airlines: We know the Pacific better than anyone (because we've put two of our planes into it already)".

Pretty hosties and "service" don't make up for lax maintenance and pressure on pilots to put schedules ahead of safety.

No thanks.

 

[NM]

Huh? So young fleet age is now a disadvantage?

Yes, it can be at times. And since they turn over the aircraft at a very young age, their just may be a reluctance to perform some maintanance that other airlines would consider necessary for the long-term benefit of the aircraft.

As an example, if you had a new car that you knew you were going to replace in say 2 years, you might be tempted to use something less than the best oil or fuel and even let it go a little beyond the recommended service interval. This may save you on your car's maintenance costs for the time that you expect to have the car, but may not be in the best long-term interest of you car's engine or other components. You hope/expect that by the time you sell the car it will not be showing any signs of deteriation, but you just never know what short term damage my be happening because you are not inspecting and checking it as often as you might if you planned on keeping the car for 20 years.

Now, I am not saying that any particular airline cuts corners on aircraft maintenance. I have no knowledge or evidence to any such claim and it would be inappropriate to do so. But I think my example shows how planning to turn over a fleet of any vehicles (even applies to government car fleets) may leave some incentive for cost cutting on maintenance.

For me, the major difference in safety is more likely to revolve around CRM and culture. But we know that all airlines can suffer from poor procedures and poor judgement and none are exempt. QF had their golfing escapade in BKK and SQ had their most unfortunate attempt to take off from a closed runway at TPE, and even BA had a 744 short of fuel after flying trans-Atlantic on 3 engines recently (lot one engine about an hour put of LAX).[/b]

 

[QF WP]

"Singapore Airlines: We know the Pacific better than anyone (because we've put two of our planes into it already)".

Beautiful comment, shillard . Lucky I hadn't picked up that glass of water yet... :wink:

I'm off to watch Air Crash Investigation on Foxtel: tonight Air Alaska put a plane into the water with loss of all on board, I think...

I'm loving this program...QF strangely haven't shown up on it yet :wink:

 

[Kiwi Flyer]

Thanks NM for the anology. But as long as they dont cut corners (with maintenance, training, etc) not sure it makes any difference.