Why the demise of QF29 HKG-LHR?
QANTAS had a golden opportunity to operate QF1/2 and QF29/30 with A380's in the near future as aircraft arrived.
SYD-LHR-SYD 800pax
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you to everyone who helped me out on this thread - I've gone ahead and written up the following piece on the removal of QF29. I'm not one to criticise for the sake of criticising, and it seems like Qantas run quite an efficient operation through Singapore to London. However, a lot of their network planning decisions relating to the HKG hub seem quite questionable:
QF29 Hong Kong to London: How Qantas trashed their own route | I like to get around
INTRO
Qantas’ recent decision to axe their QF29 Hong Kong to London route was caused by a series of poor network planning decisions.
BACKGROUND
Currently, Qantas operates a daily 747-400 between Hong Kong and London as QF29/30; this flight begins in Melbourne and is one of four daily Qantas services between Australia and the UK. Qantas is planning to axe the Hong Kong to London route in March 2012.
Qantas also flies to Hong Kong from Brisbane, Sydney and Perth using its A330-300 (the workhorse of the Asia network).
FORGETTING TO CONNECT THE FLIGHTS
Qantas neglected to follow a basic ‘Airlines 101’ principle in operating their Hong Kong hub – they forgot to time their flights so that passengers could connect. This meant that they could not fill up their Hong Kong to London flight with passengers from around Australia.
Airlines typically provide a service between Australia and the UK/Europe using the ‘scissor hub’ approach. This involves flying services from a range of Australian cities to a central hub where passengers connect onto services to the UK/Europe. Major players in the Australian to Europe market, such as Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Emirates, all use this approach. Qantas also employs this approach at its Singapore hub. Services from Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney are neatly coordinated to connect to onward services to London, Frankfurt, Mumbai and formerly Paris.
The ‘scissor hub’ approach was not adopted by Qantas in scheduling their Hong Kong services. Flights from Brisbane and Perth, which lack a direct service to London, were not timed to meet the flight from London; instead, these passengers were funnelled via Singapore. Essentially, the Hong Kong to London service was fed by only one flight (QF29 from Melbourne) rather than four. An incredibly wasteful approach to planning a service.
Qantas had the potential to make this flight the primary link between Brisbane/Perth and London, leaving the A380s to be fed by services from Melbourne, Sydney and Asia (via RedQ). This oversight was particularly because Brisbane to London is actually faster via Hong Kong than via Singapore.
INFERIOR ONBOARD PRODUCT
Qantas rolled out its updated onboard product onto both its Singapore to London flights but not its Hong Kong to London service. This would have caused passengers to shift to the Singapore hub, thereby artificially diminishing the profitability of the Hong Kong to London route.
Qantas should have given the Hong Kong to London route the same product as the Singapore to London services. This product would have been a source of differentiation against competitors and removed the artificial shift of passengers towards the Singapore hub. It also would have left more space on the A380 for passengers connecting off the new ‘RedQ’ carrier.
A FEW OTHER WHAT-IFS
It is likely that Qantas could have continued to operate the Hong Kong to London route, despite the poor scheduling out of Singapore, if they had bought the Boeing 777. Air New Zealand successfully operates the HKG-LHR route using the 777-200ER despite lacking any partner airlines at Hong Kong or London.
The Hong Kong hub could have been used to operate a tag flight to Beijing to replace the Sydney to Beijing service that was axed in 2009. This would provide additional feed for the London flight and give one of the A330s something to do instead of sitting on the ground in Hong Kong all day.
CLOSING
The Hong Kong to London route’s supposed poor performance was caused by Qantas’ failure to manage the details effectively. The route could have been a real winner, particularly for Brisbane to London passengers, if Qantas bothered to connect the flights properly and provided the same onboard product that other Qantas London flights have received.
Thank you for reading.
QF29 Hong Kong to London: How Qantas trashed their own route | I like to get around
INTRO
Qantas’ recent decision to axe their QF29 Hong Kong to London route was caused by a series of poor network planning decisions.
BACKGROUND
Currently, Qantas operates a daily 747-400 between Hong Kong and London as QF29/30; this flight begins in Melbourne and is one of four daily Qantas services between Australia and the UK. Qantas is planning to axe the Hong Kong to London route in March 2012.
Qantas also flies to Hong Kong from Brisbane, Sydney and Perth using its A330-300 (the workhorse of the Asia network).
FORGETTING TO CONNECT THE FLIGHTS
Qantas neglected to follow a basic ‘Airlines 101’ principle in operating their Hong Kong hub – they forgot to time their flights so that passengers could connect. This meant that they could not fill up their Hong Kong to London flight with passengers from around Australia.
Airlines typically provide a service between Australia and the UK/Europe using the ‘scissor hub’ approach. This involves flying services from a range of Australian cities to a central hub where passengers connect onto services to the UK/Europe. Major players in the Australian to Europe market, such as Singapore Airlines, Cathay Pacific and Emirates, all use this approach. Qantas also employs this approach at its Singapore hub. Services from Adelaide, Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth and Sydney are neatly coordinated to connect to onward services to London, Frankfurt, Mumbai and formerly Paris.
The ‘scissor hub’ approach was not adopted by Qantas in scheduling their Hong Kong services. Flights from Brisbane and Perth, which lack a direct service to London, were not timed to meet the flight from London; instead, these passengers were funnelled via Singapore. Essentially, the Hong Kong to London service was fed by only one flight (QF29 from Melbourne) rather than four. An incredibly wasteful approach to planning a service.
Qantas had the potential to make this flight the primary link between Brisbane/Perth and London, leaving the A380s to be fed by services from Melbourne, Sydney and Asia (via RedQ). This oversight was particularly because Brisbane to London is actually faster via Hong Kong than via Singapore.
INFERIOR ONBOARD PRODUCT
Qantas rolled out its updated onboard product onto both its Singapore to London flights but not its Hong Kong to London service. This would have caused passengers to shift to the Singapore hub, thereby artificially diminishing the profitability of the Hong Kong to London route.
Qantas should have given the Hong Kong to London route the same product as the Singapore to London services. This product would have been a source of differentiation against competitors and removed the artificial shift of passengers towards the Singapore hub. It also would have left more space on the A380 for passengers connecting off the new ‘RedQ’ carrier.
A FEW OTHER WHAT-IFS
It is likely that Qantas could have continued to operate the Hong Kong to London route, despite the poor scheduling out of Singapore, if they had bought the Boeing 777. Air New Zealand successfully operates the HKG-LHR route using the 777-200ER despite lacking any partner airlines at Hong Kong or London.
The Hong Kong hub could have been used to operate a tag flight to Beijing to replace the Sydney to Beijing service that was axed in 2009. This would provide additional feed for the London flight and give one of the A330s something to do instead of sitting on the ground in Hong Kong all day.
CLOSING
The Hong Kong to London route’s supposed poor performance was caused by Qantas’ failure to manage the details effectively. The route could have been a real winner, particularly for Brisbane to London passengers, if Qantas bothered to connect the flights properly and provided the same onboard product that other Qantas London flights have received.
Thank you for reading.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that Qantas has got this one right.
To me it makes no sense to operate three diferent SYD-LHR flights with a choice of refulling in Singapore, Bangkok or Hong Kong. If you are going straight through to London why would you care where the plane bounces ?. Having all the traffic funneled through Singapore must give Qantas staffing/purchasing savings as well as extra flexibility when something goes wrong.
So - from a Qantas perspective connections in BKK/HKG are a non issue - if you are going to London you do so via Singapore. This leaves only traffic with a final destination of BKK/HKG on those flights. If I want to do a stopover in either of those cities then I dont really care about the connection time.
To me it makes no sense to operate three diferent SYD-LHR flights with a choice of refulling in Singapore, Bangkok or Hong Kong. If you are going straight through to London why would you care where the plane bounces ?. Having all the traffic funneled through Singapore must give Qantas staffing/purchasing savings as well as extra flexibility when something goes wrong.
So - from a Qantas perspective connections in BKK/HKG are a non issue - if you are going to London you do so via Singapore. This leaves only traffic with a final destination of BKK/HKG on those flights. If I want to do a stopover in either of those cities then I dont really care about the connection time.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Home
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No connecting flights???
ILikeToGetAround,
You might need to check your facts again.
QF97 from BNE arrives at HKG at 0600
QF67 from PER arrives at HKG at 0605
QF29 from MEL arrives at HKG at 0550
QF87 from SYD arrives at HKG at 0500
QF29 departs HKG for LHR at 0735
Looking at the return
QF30 from LHR arrives at HKG at 1720
QF128 to SYD departs HKG at 2055
QF68 to PER departs HKG at 2325
QF98 to BNE departs HKG at 2315
You might need to check your facts again.
QF97 from BNE arrives at HKG at 0600
QF67 from PER arrives at HKG at 0605
QF29 from MEL arrives at HKG at 0550
QF87 from SYD arrives at HKG at 0500
QF29 departs HKG for LHR at 0735
Looking at the return
QF30 from LHR arrives at HKG at 1720
QF128 to SYD departs HKG at 2055
QF68 to PER departs HKG at 2325
QF98 to BNE departs HKG at 2315
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dunedin, NZ
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hong Kong to London is the route that Qantas wanted for so many years - it was denied to them because it was a cabotage route - available only to UK or HK based airlines. It was attractive to Qantas because they would have liked to give Australian passengers travelling to London a stopover in HKG, and they would also like to access the important market between HKG and LHR -all those Business passengers. A competitive market, with CX offering four or five flights per day, BA up to three flights per day and also Virgin Atlantic, which had a go at doing twice daily for a short period. AirNZ started at almost the same time as Qantas, and contrary to your comments, the route is not such a strong performer for them either.
If you want to carry local traffic between the city of Hong Kong and London, perhaps a departure at 0735 does not help - it is a long journey from the city to the airport at that time of day with a very early check in time. CX has two day light flights to London, but they leave later in the morning. BA has no daylight flights to London. But, early morning arrival slots at LHR are hard to find.
If you want to carry local traffic between the city of Hong Kong and London, perhaps a departure at 0735 does not help - it is a long journey from the city to the airport at that time of day with a very early check in time. CX has two day light flights to London, but they leave later in the morning. BA has no daylight flights to London. But, early morning arrival slots at LHR are hard to find.
So how can the unions fight? In all honestly I believe this is a no win situation the way it is being fought. I have said it all along and will say it again - BUY THE COMPANY.
Qantas has about 33,000 employees. Market Cap ($M):3,364 Equiv. Shares (M): 2,265. Share price Average $1.50.
Through the union, set up a super fund which invests in qantas, and redirect other super funds into Qantas shares. The entire value of Qantas equates to $101,000 per employee. I know many employees that would be capable of buying that level of shares.
With redirected superannuation I calculate that approximately $30,000 per employee and we would have total control of the company.
AS for SQ and EK. Different animals. SQ competes on service. EK competes because (a) it pays the majority of its staff absolutely peanuts in Dubai Pesos under some of the worst non-union protection (b) EK buys a lot of its fuel and a substantially lower price (c) EK has low interest Government funding/loans (d) IT pays no tax (including income tax/GST/Carbon Tax/payroll tax). Reality is EK is a glossed up LCC. Sat in a EK 777 with 10 across seating?
Qantas will NEVER be able to compete with Emirates. This is not QF's fault.
Qantas must compete by offering a better route network and yes maybe joint ventures are the way to go WITHOUT killing off Australian jobs
Unless everybody buys some Qantas shares (AND TAKES CONTROL) this rott at the top will continue to fester. Each and every Qantas employee could use margin loans to buy $30,000 of QAN shares. This would mean a cash investment of $9000 per head, on average. (Loans available at 70% of share price) With redirection of super funds into QAN shares we would take control
Wake up. I have been preaching this for ages and I wonder if Qantas employees really believe in Qantas and are as passionate as they pretend.
I am advocating investment, not donation. This is a tax effective, deductible investment that will save Qantas and ultimately be a profit making excercise
Qantas has about 33,000 employees. Market Cap ($M):3,364 Equiv. Shares (M): 2,265. Share price Average $1.50.
Through the union, set up a super fund which invests in qantas, and redirect other super funds into Qantas shares. The entire value of Qantas equates to $101,000 per employee. I know many employees that would be capable of buying that level of shares.
With redirected superannuation I calculate that approximately $30,000 per employee and we would have total control of the company.
AS for SQ and EK. Different animals. SQ competes on service. EK competes because (a) it pays the majority of its staff absolutely peanuts in Dubai Pesos under some of the worst non-union protection (b) EK buys a lot of its fuel and a substantially lower price (c) EK has low interest Government funding/loans (d) IT pays no tax (including income tax/GST/Carbon Tax/payroll tax). Reality is EK is a glossed up LCC. Sat in a EK 777 with 10 across seating?
Qantas will NEVER be able to compete with Emirates. This is not QF's fault.
Qantas must compete by offering a better route network and yes maybe joint ventures are the way to go WITHOUT killing off Australian jobs
Unless everybody buys some Qantas shares (AND TAKES CONTROL) this rott at the top will continue to fester. Each and every Qantas employee could use margin loans to buy $30,000 of QAN shares. This would mean a cash investment of $9000 per head, on average. (Loans available at 70% of share price) With redirection of super funds into QAN shares we would take control
Wake up. I have been preaching this for ages and I wonder if Qantas employees really believe in Qantas and are as passionate as they pretend.
I am advocating investment, not donation. This is a tax effective, deductible investment that will save Qantas and ultimately be a profit making excercise
I concur.
QFA staff & shareholders need to either act or alternatively accept their fate.
You have an arguably poisonous management program, that is hell bent on undertaking a structure that the majority of you are unlikely to survive. The current protected industrial action is achieving little, (unless the intent is to reduce the buyout price, in which case it is ineffective to date).
The disconnect between reality (ie Jetstar Pacific) and rhetoric indicates that the management is failing to learn any lesson from their performance. The additional disgraceful practice of complaining about the long haul program profitability without acknowledging the effects of the off book transactions to Jetstar's advantage, or the penalties for criminal behaviour by management personnel on multiple occasions is evidence that the underlying intent to transfer the whole operation in due course to the cheap and nasty orange program is like catnip to the poison dwarf.
QFA needs to be able to compete with the global market. The incestuous relationship of Jetstar, and the irrational group think position of QF corporate management that considers that a despised, poor quality product which is not able to show profitability in other markets is the way of the future needs to be removed from the equation.
If you work for QFA or own shares in the company, you need to act to protect your program from the existing management. Striking is not effective. Either buyout or accept the alternative. If you do not wish to act to buy the company, then please do stop complaining, the outcome is within your control and the ultimate demise of QF will be a result of inaction.
(As oft misquoted) from Burke:
"Perpetrators, collaborators, bystanders, victims: we can be clear about three of these categories. The bystander, however, is the fulcrum. If there are enough notable exceptions, then protest reaches a critical mass. We don’t usually think of history as being shaped by silence, but, as English philosopher Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph [of evil] is for good men to do nothing.’".
FDR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To me it makes no sense to operate three diferent SYD-LHR flights with a choice of refulling in Singapore, Bangkok or Hong Kong.
I appreciate what you're saying about the stopovers, but funnelling the BNE and PER pax via HKG would allow more space on the A380s for QantAsia pax. It doesn't add up that Qantas wants to concurrently increase the passengers flying to LHR (they've said that they want to carry QantAsia passengers to Europe) while reducing the capacity to LHR.
If you want to carry local traffic between the city of Hong Kong and London, perhaps a departure at 0735 does not help - it is a long journey from the city to the airport at that time of day with a very early check in time. CX has two day light flights to London, but they leave later in the morning.
Is traffic between Asia and London a major source of revenue for the Qantas LHR flights? Perhaps because the flight is only fed by Melbourne and Sydney (both of which have direct A380 services to LHR) they were filling up the aircraft with low yield HKG-LHR traffic willing to travel early. Do the A380s carrying much SIN-LHR local traffic?
Looking at the return
QF30 from LHR arrives at HKG at 1720
QF128 to SYD departs HKG at 2055
QF68 to PER departs HKG at 2325
QF98 to BNE departs HKG at 2315
QF30 from LHR arrives at HKG at 1720
QF128 to SYD departs HKG at 2055
QF68 to PER departs HKG at 2325
QF98 to BNE departs HKG at 2315
QF29, if given the same on-board product as the SIN-LHR flights, and timed to connect in both directions, could have been a real winner for BNE-LHR and PER-LHR pax. The newer product probably would have skimmed some traffic off BA and NZ on the route, too.
Last edited by ILikeToGetAround; 25th Oct 2011 at 01:43. Reason: Hit 'post' before finished
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: With Ratty and Mole
Posts: 421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger Traffic
It was found that 65% of QF passengers that visited HKG were actually on a 1 or two day transit to Europe...in patricular LHR.Qantas wanted a piece of the action.
HKG has long been a better destination for shopping and nightlife than SIN.
FRA to BKK would be a better sector than FRA/SIN.Germans are still in love with Thailand.
Perhaps QF are close to obtaining rights from PVG to LHR?
This would perhaps replace HKG.
Still and all cutting down services to the UK in the year of the Olympics does seem odd.With the Ex pat population in HKG and Australians wanting to see the Olympics seats will be at a premium~prices go up and yield should be a bonanza
HKG has long been a better destination for shopping and nightlife than SIN.
FRA to BKK would be a better sector than FRA/SIN.Germans are still in love with Thailand.
Perhaps QF are close to obtaining rights from PVG to LHR?
This would perhaps replace HKG.
Still and all cutting down services to the UK in the year of the Olympics does seem odd.With the Ex pat population in HKG and Australians wanting to see the Olympics seats will be at a premium~prices go up and yield should be a bonanza
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 57
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feeding the A320 Neos
Very odd decision given they have come up with a plan to base a large number of A320 Neos fitted with just business class seats in HK to feed into China.
One could make a case for the large number of business class seats into HK (from UK, Australia and Japan (JetStar Japan with Business class in A320)) need to be re-directed into China via HK.
The simple way to start an airline in to use your own feed, interline and revenue management systems.
Why would you take that feed away. Sort of leads the new small airline to the wolves.
One could make a case for the large number of business class seats into HK (from UK, Australia and Japan (JetStar Japan with Business class in A320)) need to be re-directed into China via HK.
The simple way to start an airline in to use your own feed, interline and revenue management systems.
Why would you take that feed away. Sort of leads the new small airline to the wolves.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: australia
Age: 59
Posts: 425
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wait till you travel on one of the new reconfigured 747. losing another 5 dunnies!. those sick bags are not waterproof either. punters struggle to get their business (sorry) done with 14, will be interesting with only 9. premium carrier, LCC crappers.
with regards load factors maybe using staff travel to check loads on sectors syd/hkg/lhr, syd/bkk/lhr in april then compare with syd/hkg, syd/bkk in may could show some interesting data. will there be a drop off in sydney sectors after april?
with regards load factors maybe using staff travel to check loads on sectors syd/hkg/lhr, syd/bkk/lhr in april then compare with syd/hkg, syd/bkk in may could show some interesting data. will there be a drop off in sydney sectors after april?
Last edited by indamiddle; 27th Oct 2011 at 04:29. Reason: musing further
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 889
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Through the union, set up a super fund which invests in qantas, and redirect other super funds into Qantas shares.
Also, in the seventies many unions in western countries exerted a high degree of control over major employers. They did this through political rather than capitalist methods, but control existed in some form. Consider miners and car manufacturers in the UK, waterfront workers and builders' labourers in Australia & NZ. Now how well did that work out for everyone? Not well at all, for management or for workers. The power of unions and employers must be held in a balanced tension, and abuse results if either one dominates.
O8
Investor & union member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very odd decision given they have come up with a plan to base a large number of A320 Neos fitted with just business class seats in HK to feed into China.
Having said that, you'd think that the additional demand out of SIN (due to the new carrier you mentioned) would increase the need to carry pax via HKG, rather then decrease it. I believe that QF29/30 could have functioned as the primary Asia-LHR flight for PER and BNE pax, thereby allowing the SIN-LHR A380s to cater for the new QantAsia in the manner you suggested.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: juneau
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the back-story. NZ was always going to be the most vulnerable carrier on this route, despite its smaller aircraft, because it lacks feed at either end.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The math aint that hard.
QF29 arrives LHR 13.30
QF30 departs LHR 22.30
So 9hrs sitting on the tarmac doing sfa in the middle of the European day, plus pilots and crew out of port on big layovers.
Competing against BA who can turn their 747/ 777s on a short Eurohop or maintenance in that time, or CX who can fly the schedules ex HKG to make quicker turns and all without layover and multiple crew costs.
Planes on the ground = cost disadvantage...
----------
On RedQ/oneasia etc I actually see this potentially being positive for QF-metal to SIN.
Due to the LHR curfew, all QFs SIN services arrive late at night - too late for any connections. Thus if going to a whole bunch of secondary Asian cities you fly SQ/MH or someone else to make a same-day connection.
If RedQ actually works it might support some early morning Asian flights out of Aussie ports in addition to the LHR connections.
-------
QueenBuzz,
Looking forward to the A380 to HKG....
However long term (and if China ever becomes more visa-friendly to Aussies) competing price-wise against CZ into CAN (only about 1-1.5hr by train) from HKG is going to be tough.
QF29 arrives LHR 13.30
QF30 departs LHR 22.30
So 9hrs sitting on the tarmac doing sfa in the middle of the European day, plus pilots and crew out of port on big layovers.
Competing against BA who can turn their 747/ 777s on a short Eurohop or maintenance in that time, or CX who can fly the schedules ex HKG to make quicker turns and all without layover and multiple crew costs.
Planes on the ground = cost disadvantage...
----------
On RedQ/oneasia etc I actually see this potentially being positive for QF-metal to SIN.
Due to the LHR curfew, all QFs SIN services arrive late at night - too late for any connections. Thus if going to a whole bunch of secondary Asian cities you fly SQ/MH or someone else to make a same-day connection.
If RedQ actually works it might support some early morning Asian flights out of Aussie ports in addition to the LHR connections.
-------
QueenBuzz,
Looking forward to the A380 to HKG....
However long term (and if China ever becomes more visa-friendly to Aussies) competing price-wise against CZ into CAN (only about 1-1.5hr by train) from HKG is going to be tough.
moa999 your logic is seriously lacking.....
According to you 9 hrs sitting on the tarmac doing SFA is the problem of the 29/30. So why then do the, 11/12, 15/16, 93/94 and 107/108 make money despite their "sitting on the tarmac doing SFA" for up to 17 hours?
so in this case the math is hard, based on your logic....
According to you 9 hrs sitting on the tarmac doing SFA is the problem of the 29/30. So why then do the, 11/12, 15/16, 93/94 and 107/108 make money despite their "sitting on the tarmac doing SFA" for up to 17 hours?
so in this case the math is hard, based on your logic....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Melbourne
Age: 38
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Due to the LHR curfew, all QFs SIN services arrive late at night - too late for any connections. Thus if going to a whole bunch of secondary Asian cities you fly SQ/MH or someone else to make a same-day connection.
If RedQ actually works it might support some early morning Asian flights out of Aussie ports in addition to the LHR connections.
If RedQ actually works it might support some early morning Asian flights out of Aussie ports in addition to the LHR connections.
SQ has three flights per day LHR-SIN; these are spread somewhat evenly across the day at 1100, 1800 and 2200.