First A380 delivery

As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.

I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.

How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
world-wide market?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Jay Honeck wrote:
As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.

I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.

How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
world-wide market?

The offer good service. I realize conventional wisdom in the US has it
that price is everything for for some people it is, but I'll pay more
for comfort ... a lot more. Unfortunately, in the US I can no longer
find it unless I go into first class. I'm not willing to pay 3-4X more,
so I just avoid airline travel and drive if at all possible. However, I
would easily pay 50% more for a decent seat and decent service.

Matt

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would
suspect
their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.

I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.

How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
world-wide market?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

As Matt pointed out, they provide good service. Since they are a Pacific Rim
carrier, they fly long routes and the pax who frequent those routes value an
additional few inches of leg and/or hip room.

As someone who has sat on a two stop, 32 hour flight, I can tell you that
even a little more room makes a world of difference.

KB

"Kyle Boatright" wrote

As someone who has sat on a two stop, 32 hour flight, I can tell you that
even a little more room makes a world of difference.

That is almost beyond my comprehension! What was the flight (and route)
that you flew that had 32 hrs, and 2 stops?
--
Jim in NC

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"Kyle Boatright" wrote

As someone who has sat on a two stop, 32 hour flight, I can tell you that
even a little more room makes a world of difference.

That is almost beyond my comprehension! What was the flight (and route)
that you flew that had 32 hrs, and 2 stops?
--
Jim in NC

NYC - Anchorage - Seoul, Korea - Auckland, NZ

"Kyle Boatright" wrote

NYC - Anchorage - Seoul, Korea - Auckland, NZ

Wow! -That- is *indeed* a flight!
--
Jim in NC

I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.

How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
world-wide market?
--

This is a good question that I have wondered about myself and I am not
sure that there is any simple answer. Their service is fantastic and
the prices are not high at all which makes me wonder if the Singapore
govt subsidizes SA in different ways and their profit may not be as
high under the hood when everything is taken into account.. hard to
tell. Image is everything for the Singapore govt and they leave no
stone unturned to project a positive image of their country.

On Oct 15, 1:38 pm, Jay Honeck wrote:
As Singapore airlines has probably made more profit in the last 10 years
than the whole of the big US legacy carriers put together, I would suspect
their judgement is better than anything the US has to offer.

I confess I know nothing about Singapore Airlines, so bear with me.

How is it that they are so profitable, in a cut-throat, competitive
world-wide market?

Last year I took a round the world business trip that included a
majority of flights in the Pacific Rim, most of them on Cathay Pacific
(I was on a oneworld ticket, and that alliance doesn't include
Singapore Airlines, which is part of Star Alliance I believe). I also
flew Qantas quite a bit, and a few other local carriers like Dragonair
(which is owned by Cathay Pacific).

The biggies that fly all over the pacific all provide a level of
service that U.S. customers haven't seen for years. However it's not
that fair a comparison because almost all flights on those airlines
are international and very long. Most of these airlines fly mostly
international, while U.S. airlines fly mostly domestic, and it shows
in how they work on both types of flights. The domestic flights in
that region are few and far between and not usually on the flagship
carriers, because most of the countries, except Australia and China,
are too small geographically. The domestic flights I did take, on
Dragonair in China and Qantas in Australia, were not any better or
worse than U.S. domestic flights in my opinion. Qantas is probably
the only major airline in the region that also does a significant
amount of domestic flying and they are pretty good at it, but it ain't
like the international flights that leave Americans raving at how good
airline service in the Asia-Pacific region is. And oh by the way
Qantas is getting its lunch eaten domestically by lower cost, no-
frills domestic airlines.

Anyway, international flights are more profitable than domestic
flights, period. Even the U.S. carriers do well financially on their
international service, which is why they fight so hard for those
routes. So if you're a carrier that flies mostly international,
you'll be doing better than one that flies mostly domestic as a
general rule -- and that describes most major airlines in that part of
the world. Oh, the travel market in that part of the world is booming
anyway.

Anyway, international flights are more profitable than domestic
flights, period.

I think Juan Trippe, of Pan Am fame, discovered that in the 1930s.

Even the U.S. carriers do well financially on their
international service, which is why they fight so hard for those
routes.

Makes me wonder how Pan Am went down in flames. Why didn't they
stick to their international roots?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Makes me wonder how Pan Am went down in flames. Why didn't they
stick to their international roots?

"Domestic" carriers got tired of being feeders for PanAm flights and
started flying internationally themselves. PanAm had to introduce
domestic flights to get passengers to their hubs. Later they got into
financial troubles and sold their best routes to raise money. That's
all gross oversimplification, but you get the picture.

If you want to know more, I recommend "Hard Landing" by Thomas Jr
Petzinger. It's a really good book, I hope the guy writes a sequel
someday.

Bartek