Singapore Airlines announced this week that its new low cost carriers will be called . . . Scoot. The airline will start flying 777s to Australia and Asia at first and expand beyond there. Does it have a shot at success?
Singapore Airlines announced this week that its new low cost carriers will be called . . . Scoot. The airline will start flying 777s to Australia and Asia at first and expand beyond there. Does it have a shot at success?
16 comments on “Topic of the Week: Scoot”
Does the word/name Scoot mean something special in Asia? If not, it’s a dumb sounding name. To me it means scoot get out of here as in get out and travel or go on vacation. Will it have the same meaning in Asia.
It should have a chance since mama bird is SQ which should have deep pockets to ride the tide of getting started with a new low cost baby. But in Singapore there is only SIN airport which means Scoot will compete with SQ so they will have to use Scoot to smaller secondary Asian cities that SQ doesn’t serve or SQ will need to modify its planes to removed coach and add more first/business seats to get the business travelers and let Scoot handle it’s lowest fare leisure travelers.
Well, isn’t that sort of the point of SilkAir, to serve the regional destinations that SQ mainline doesn’t?
SQ really shouldn’t have to create a new low-cost airline to compete with AirAsia and the like – of course they serve different demographics, but most of the passengers that Scoot will get will probably be from coming from SQ, not other LCCs.
And I agree about “Scoot” sounding stupid. There are plenty of names out there that don’t really have any meaning, but at least make a name that people can take seriously.
What a terrible idea, but I love it! It gives me ENDLESS pleasure/schadenfreude watching all the EU/Asian carriers come up with the same crap ideas that the US carriers tried a decade ago. Welcome to deregulation folks! You’ve only just *begun*, especially Asia. Just wait until Air France charges for alcohol in Y!
This is probably just a way for SQ to park some 772’s until they end up at … Transaero lol. I see Scoot in places like Xi’an, Urumqi, etc. SQ has said there will be seat assignments, meals, connections to SQ and Tiger, and possibly FF miles.
I would personally like to see some aggressive expansion of Tiger. I know SQ is a conservative group but look at AirAsia! However, one thing Tiger has is interline with SQ which I don’t think MH and AirAsia have yet.
What do you all feel about 3-4-3 seating? I have never tried it. Obviously as an LCC Scoot better have 3-4-3 on their 777’s. People on the internet all seem to dislike it yet Emirates, AF, KL has it on almost all their 777’s.
Beats me.
how many “airlines within an airline” have actually worked?
TED, CALite, MetroJet, Song, Delta Express, (didn’t BA have one?), BMIbaby (is it still around?),
BA’s was called Go Fly, branded as “Go”. Not to be confused with Mesa’s Hawaii operation. bmibaby is still around.
More: United Shuttle, Zip, Tango
Go was bought by easyJet back in the day. Don’t forget Germanwings and of course, the hotly-contested Jetstar down under. Here in the US, if we want to go back a few years, New York Air would fall into that category.
Questionable viability or not…I believe Scoot is a motivator behind Alan Joyce’s panic to lower QF’s fixed costs. Stupid name or not, it is attached to a five star brand and deep pockets. Yes, the airline in the airline thing didn’t fly in the US (no pun intended) but the Asian marketplace is a different animal. Geographically, block time connecting our furthest major markets is 5 to 7 hours. Within Asia, 5 to 7 hours is considered medium to short haul.
Air travel consumer demos are totally different as well. The US consumer has repeatedly proven that they will complain,but tolerate, allot to save a few bucks. That is not the case in most of Asia; they may not complain about service shortcoming but will quickly take their business elsewhere. Walmart learned this the hard way when they tried to apply the ‘you get what you pay for’ paradigm there.
I think the reality is that air travel demographics are actually the same the world ’round. People will do a lot of strange things to save a few bucks, and paying extra for luggage/meals/seat assignments in order to save on the base fare are on the less-strange side of the spectrum–they will become the norm, and only the tip of the iceberg. The US is a good decade ahead of the EU in terms of deregulation, and light years ahead of Asia; if you want to know where things are headed, look no further than your average US legacy.
How will Scoot fit in with SQ other holdings with Tiger Airways and Silk Air? Both of which fly to the same destinations.
Tiger is the ultra low cost, shorter haul, narrowbody model. That one is differentiated. Silk Air doesn’t seem low cost to me at all. I think it’s just a regional player but it’s full service, right?
Yes, Silk Air is a full-service regional carrier (although not as nice as SQ of course).
Considering what they have already, Scoot doesn’t really seem necessary…
Does it have a shot at success? Depends how much Singapore Airlines wants to spend on it. My feeling is that it will draw its passengers from Singapore Airlines itself. Singapore may even pull out of some short routes and hand them off to Scoot.
And I agree the name sounds stupid, but not any stupider than “JetBlue” or “Spirit”.
SQ has a great product which is expensive to produce. Demand for more economical alternatives is high in the region, and the gap truely does exist. Singapore Airlines could not grow their customer base at the price points necessary without risking their core differentiator, this subsidiary allows them to test the waters as a low cost alternative. Business travelers, those with means, code share and network (Star Aliance) riders will continue to opt for SQ; Scoot is for the masses that just need to…scoot!
The name Scoot is not that bad – at least it’s implies movement. It’s not as airy fairy as ANA’s recently announced low-cost subsidiary, Peach.