Despite the temporary setback of higher oil prices, we’ve generally seen a trend in recent times whereby airlines are launching more ultra long haul flights. Well, Air Canada is temporarily countering that trend, as the Canadian Star Alliance airline will end its longest route, less than three years after launching it.
Air Canada cuts Vancouver to Singapore flights as of early 2027
AeroRoutes flags how Air Canada has quietly updated its schedule, reflecting that the airline will discontinue its route between Vancouver (YVR) and Singapore (SIN) as of January 24, 2027.
Air Canada launched this route in April 2024, and it has operated anywhere from 3-5x weekly. The flight has most commonly been operated by a Boeing 787-9 with the following schedule:
AC019 Vancouver to Singapore departing 11:15PM arriving 7:00AM (+2 days)
AC020 Singapore to Vancouver departing 8:40AM arriving 7:45AM
At 7,967 miles, and with a block time of up to 16hr45min, this has been Air Canada’s longest distance route. With this route being cut, there will also be no more nonstop links between Canada and Singapore.
Why is Air Canada cutting its flights to Singapore?
We’ve seen a trend in North America toward airlines operating more ultra long haul flights. There are many factors that have contributed to this, including more capable aircraft for these types of missions, along with more of a focus on premium leisure travel, as well as a network that helps bolster a loyalty program.
Air Canada is an airline that definitely punches above its weight when it comes to its global route network. It’s interesting how the airline has had more success flying from Vancouver to Bangkok (BKK), as that route started as seasonal, but has become year-round ever since.
On the one hand, Air Canada has some nice advantages flying ultra long haul transpacific routes like this. Vancouver’s geography is impossible to beat for Asia flying. Air Canada also has a fortress hub in Vancouver, and has somewhat of a cost structure advantage over its peers in the United States.
Even so, this kind of ultra long haul flying is challenging, unless there’s a massive amount of high yield point-to-point traffic. The Vancouver to Singapore market has a healthy amount of origin & destination demand. However:
- A lot of the demand in this market is price sensitive, and Vancouver has no shortage of Asian carriers operating one-stop service between Vancouver and Singapore, some of which are able to undercut Air Canada on price
- Air Canada had marketed this route as also being about connections, and the reality is that it’s hard to make the economics work when you’re relying on connecting passengers, given the number of one-stop options that exist, which don’t involve ultra long haul flights
- Due to the length of this flight, cargo has presumably been pretty limited, since there’s not much payload left on a 787 operating a sector this long
- I imagine that the current jet fuel price situation was just the nail in the coffin for this service, because this route is probably performing particularly poorly at the moment
Bottom line
As of January 2027, Air Canada will discontinue its route between Vancouver and Singapore, a little under three years after it was launched. This is Air Canada’s longest route. I suspect the economics here didn’t end up being great in the first place, and only got worse with the current jet fuel situation.
What do you make of Air Canada cutting Singapore flights?
Bring SQ back on this route. Ever since AC started this route, my family and I travel to Seattle or San Fran to fly SQ to Singapore instead. At least have it seasonal.
Not a fan of AC's service and food standards. Service and hospitality is a BIG part for long haul.
I'd take JAL or Nippon on this route too and wouldn't mind paying a little extra.
The issue is probably the LOPA being economy-heavy. Air Canada only has 30J seats to sell (vs. 64 on United). They need a much more premium-heavy configuration for a market like SIN, particularly in a high fuel cost environment. Even now, Business Class on the route is selling for over $8000+ which indicates premium demand isn't likely the issue.
VERY BLUNTLY : THERE IS NOTHING LOST .AC IS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL WHEN PUT UP AGAINST THE ASIAN CARRIERS. END OF STORY
We did Vancouver to Singapore on Singapore Airlines before they cancelled the route and Air Canada picked it up: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cXbWm9uobGs
But Singapore Airlines at least had onward connecting traffic. If SQ couldn't do it successfully, how could AC?
AC connections through YVR?.
From what we saw on our SQ flight, the connecting traffic originated in Vancouver and connected through Singapore.
YYZ has much more interesting connections to connect to or through Singapore, like UA1 in San Francisco (which I flew twice in 2018), or Tokyo, or Seoul or Taipei. WS flying to Japan from Alberta is the real experiment, and I'm glad that's continuing.
Also the Singapore Dollar is way over par with the Canadian Dollar now....
From what we saw on our SQ flight, the connecting traffic originated in Vancouver and connected through Singapore.
YYZ has much more interesting connections to connect to or through Singapore, like UA1 in San Francisco (which I flew twice in 2018), or Tokyo, or Seoul or Taipei. WS flying to Japan from Alberta is the real experiment, and I'm glad that's continuing.
Also the Singapore Dollar is way over par with the Canadian Dollar now. When I first travelled to Singapore 20 years ago it was a lopsided difference and Singapore was a better draw for tourism. I can see AC serving BKK directly as a business case in comparison.
If SQ can't do it with its premium product, why can AC with its weird pretzel sticks?
Vancouver and Singapore doesn’t have much business demand. Even for folks in Toronto, there are better one stop solutions. And leisure visitors going to south east Asia has many options to choose from.
Seattle and Singapore has more business demand which might be sustainable.
Vancouver and Singapore spent have much business demand. Even for folks in Toronto, there are better one stop solutions. And leisure visitors going to south east Asia has many options to choose from.
Seattle and Singapore has more business demand which might be sustainable.
We'll see how Delta's SEA to SIN goes when they start the service next year.
Delta has not said that the route will be from SEA, nor have they said that it's starting next year.
All we know, is that they intend to fly to SIN at some point, and likely not from LAX.
Delta has been very weirdly coy about where they intend to fly this from.
Like you said, most bloggers and AvGeeks are assuming Seattle, but they've never actually said this. Esposito has just said "not LAX."
Makes me wonder if they may surprise us with something completely out of left field, like flying it from New York. Their...
Delta has been very weirdly coy about where they intend to fly this from.
Like you said, most bloggers and AvGeeks are assuming Seattle, but they've never actually said this. Esposito has just said "not LAX."
Makes me wonder if they may surprise us with something completely out of left field, like flying it from New York. Their 283tonne A359s could do it with no problem, as could A35Ks if they take them at a high enough MTOW.
But then again, DL's still not bothered flying Tokyo nor Seoul out of New York, so there's that.
DTW is still an option. The two highest yielding longhauls in DL's entire network (per Cirium y.e. 4Q25) are both from DTW to Asia.
"Makes me wonder if they may surprise us with something completely out of left field, like flying it from New York."
Or more disappointingly, watch them fly it as a 1-stop through Narita (like it was before) now that they're serving that airport again.
On September 17, CFO John Di Bert told investors at Morgan Stanley's Laguna Conference that they were looking at capacity cuts as fuel was exceeding the point where they could recover on fares, and gave examples of long-haul Asia-Pacific flights being under consideration for reductions.
This flight is a grind, especially in ecomomy. AC best in North America, is not setting the bar very high. Give me a layover to SIN, stretch the legs, get a decent meal. You can get 2 tiks for 1 value flying another carrier into Bangkok or KL instead of AC, where customer service is job #5.
I will, and do, take Polaris over AC J class pretty much anytime I can. AC is not the best on long haul international in J class. The UA/NH codeshares are quite good.
A lot of things failed for it. Its load factor was 60%. It never released award space within reasonable value. Then theres the competitors. You can fly from SEA to SIN direct on singapore airlines. Singapore was more or less the same pricing but more of a layover.
Being star alliance, doesnt seem there was much alliance at all.
And (so far as SQ goes) there isn't.
SQ does not have an immunized revenue-sharing j/v with any of its North American Star Alliance partners, and thus still views them as direct competitors (which they are).
Heck, they only even bothered to codeshare, relatively recently, with United. United's mileage cannot be used to redeem premium seats...
And (so far as SQ goes) there isn't.
SQ does not have an immunized revenue-sharing j/v with any of its North American Star Alliance partners, and thus still views them as direct competitors (which they are).
Heck, they only even bothered to codeshare, relatively recently, with United. United's mileage cannot be used to redeem premium seats on Singapore for any transpacific nor transatlantic flight as well.
Not sure why it was started in the first place?
Both Singapore Airlines tried it twice and now Air Canada.
I feel the planning department saw, rich country, more passengers?
Why not go to Kuala Lumpur for not budget carrier connectivity?
What gives?
First, AC is a terrible airline, economy is really bad, premium is not all that premium, and business is barely passable.
Maybe it doesnt matter for a short transatlantic when business has virtually zero service, food is terrible, and flight attendants are nowhere to be found, but that ain't gonna work for a longhaul and flights with decent competition.
Don't forget AC (laughably) tried flying to IST and competing with TK,...
What gives?
First, AC is a terrible airline, economy is really bad, premium is not all that premium, and business is barely passable.
Maybe it doesnt matter for a short transatlantic when business has virtually zero service, food is terrible, and flight attendants are nowhere to be found, but that ain't gonna work for a longhaul and flights with decent competition.
Don't forget AC (laughably) tried flying to IST and competing with TK, then DOH competing with QR. Those ended rather quickly
I'm curious: which North American carrier would you say is better than AC? IME, they're the best of a bad lot...
United Polaris is better to SIN.
United has Economy Plus whereas AC has a few bulkhead seats.
And then of course are the plethora of Asian choices with a stop to break up the journey
UA Polaris. And they have a string partnership with NH so for those wanting a connection in Tokyo or Osaka (which we use frequently) they can fly US to Jaoan and then hop on NH for the rest of Asia. UA and AC service and food may be similar. Seat and bedding on UA is much better.
It's unfortunate to lose this transpacific non-stop.
"Vancouver’s geography is impossible to beat for Asia flying."
Truth. Vancouver has some history as a jumping off point for trans-Pacific flight; CX used to fly SFO-YVR-HKG back in the days where SFO was their only US destination. I flew this route in 1988 back when CX was still using the 747-200s (the 400s weren't introduced to scheduled service until the following year); back then there were five rows of first class, with a smoking...
"Vancouver’s geography is impossible to beat for Asia flying."
Truth. Vancouver has some history as a jumping off point for trans-Pacific flight; CX used to fly SFO-YVR-HKG back in the days where SFO was their only US destination. I flew this route in 1988 back when CX was still using the 747-200s (the 400s weren't introduced to scheduled service until the following year); back then there were five rows of first class, with a smoking "section" in rows 4 and 5, and then another small FC cabin upstairs. Soon thereafter CX got the -400s and started nonstop service to HKG from the US west coast. One can see the seating chart here https://frequentlyflying.boardingarea.com/vintage-airline-seat-map-cathay-pacific-boeing-747-200b/ (note the missing over wing doors 3R and 3L, to allow for more seat density).
damn willy you're old as hell dude
@Willy; I well remember the CX SFO-YVR-HKG. Was a travel manager in SFO back in the day and took that journey a couple times.
@BradStPete
That's really cool! That was my first flight on CX, and I've been in love with them ever since. It was also during this time that their slogan was "Arrive in Better Shape" (I still have my laminated business card with that slogan on it; they provided those in the FCL in SFO), and they boasted about how their cabin crew was comprised of citizens of all the Asian nations to which they flew....
@BradStPete
That's really cool! That was my first flight on CX, and I've been in love with them ever since. It was also during this time that their slogan was "Arrive in Better Shape" (I still have my laminated business card with that slogan on it; they provided those in the FCL in SFO), and they boasted about how their cabin crew was comprised of citizens of all the Asian nations to which they flew.
And now I'm going to go down a rabbit hole looking around my place for old PR literature from CX - that's the blessing / curse of being a pack rat. Thank you for the inspiration! :)
@travelinwilly Did you live in the Bay Area then ? Thanks for your reply
@BradStPete
I lived in the US midwest at the time. That particular trip was on a United award ticket (Remember the nascent days of the frequent flyer programs? Yeah, they were really the golden age in many ways.) that had me routed in FC ORD-SFO-YVR-HKG-BKK-SIN on the outbound, and then BKK-HKG-YVR-SFO-ORD on the return, with the two domestic segments being on UA, the rest on CX. All for 100,000 points pp, and I went with...
@BradStPete
I lived in the US midwest at the time. That particular trip was on a United award ticket (Remember the nascent days of the frequent flyer programs? Yeah, they were really the golden age in many ways.) that had me routed in FC ORD-SFO-YVR-HKG-BKK-SIN on the outbound, and then BKK-HKG-YVR-SFO-ORD on the return, with the two domestic segments being on UA, the rest on CX. All for 100,000 points pp, and I went with another person, so the entire jaunt cost 200,000 points.
@travelinwilly OMG Loved the L10 !!! Not only as pax but I flew for Pan Am for 2 years and would work the L10 from time to time. I was primarily on 74's but the TriStar was a joy to work as well.
Obviously they heard the rumor that AA was considering LAX-SIN and decided to immediately axe the route.
Fuel price is the likely and obvious answer to why the route was cut but I am curious what's happened to AC US-based flow traffic over the last year as the saber-rattling escalated.
i.e. if it's gone up or down.
I'm not suggesting MAGA people are the bulk of their US-based customer set -- I highly doubt that -- but there is increased friction that I'm curious how that's impacted AC.
We...
Fuel price is the likely and obvious answer to why the route was cut but I am curious what's happened to AC US-based flow traffic over the last year as the saber-rattling escalated.
i.e. if it's gone up or down.
I'm not suggesting MAGA people are the bulk of their US-based customer set -- I highly doubt that -- but there is increased friction that I'm curious how that's impacted AC.
We obviously already know that far fewer Canadians are visiting the US.
Though the AC789 LOPA would seem to be not optimally built for ULH flights if the premium trend of the US3 is similar to what Air Canada is seeing. It's basically the non-premium AA 789 LOPA with 13 more seats crammed into the economy section somehow
Flying an ultra long haul flight is very different in reality than on a route map in a boardroom. It’s worth comparing United and how it manages to operate two daily SFO-SIN flights, despite SFO being even farther from Singapore than YVR. Presumably the strength of United’s SFO hub and the connecting traffic it can feed onto those flights makes the economics very different. Sometimes the viability of a 17 hour nonstop flight has less...
Flying an ultra long haul flight is very different in reality than on a route map in a boardroom. It’s worth comparing United and how it manages to operate two daily SFO-SIN flights, despite SFO being even farther from Singapore than YVR. Presumably the strength of United’s SFO hub and the connecting traffic it can feed onto those flights makes the economics very different. Sometimes the viability of a 17 hour nonstop flight has less to do with the two cities at either end than everything feeding into them.
UA didn't *WANT* to have 2 daily SFO-SIN flights. They started with one each from LAX and SFO. The problem is that their 254 tonne 787-9s just do not have the payload-range to reliably fly LAX-SIN westbound, yearround, without unsustainable restrictions. They were routinely blocking more than 6 rows during the winter, while still going out at FVL.
Looked up AC19, YVR-SIN, 16ish hours, which, like the SQ/UA LAX/SFO routes, usually flies up to Alaska then down over the Pacific (west), unlike SQ21/23, EWR/JFK-SIN, which often flies east over the Atlantic, Europe, the Stans, etc., since polar routes aren’t as much an option these days due to Russia and China. I presume from NYC flying up and west to Alaska then down is farther, longer, more fuel, etc. And yet, the return, SQ22/24,...
Looked up AC19, YVR-SIN, 16ish hours, which, like the SQ/UA LAX/SFO routes, usually flies up to Alaska then down over the Pacific (west), unlike SQ21/23, EWR/JFK-SIN, which often flies east over the Atlantic, Europe, the Stans, etc., since polar routes aren’t as much an option these days due to Russia and China. I presume from NYC flying up and west to Alaska then down is farther, longer, more fuel, etc. And yet, the return, SQ22/24, SIN-EWR/JFK, goes east up and over Pacific. Kinda interesting, if you’re into that stuff.
SQ35/37 do not go anywhere near as north prior to the TPAC as you indicated. Personal experience as well as looking up flight aware. It has always been pretty much a straight crossing once you take off from LAX. At times, the flights get close to SFO before starting the TPAC.
Maybe I am wrong, but this is what I have experienced.
"SQ35/37 do not go anywhere near as north prior to the TPAC as you indicated."
Yes they occasionally do, it depends on multiple factors, mostly weather.
I take that flight multiple times per year, and we've been almost as high north as the Aleutians at 17 hrs 30 minutes, and almost straight across re-dispatched over Manila at 15 hrs 40 minutes.
I see what you mean, yeah, really straddles the equator. That's a lot of time over the Pacific. Must be bumpy with all the hurricanes and typhoons this El Nino...
Flew this route earlier this year. I would rather take almost any Asian airline with a stop than fly AC. It is most than just about price. Even UA Polaris is better from NA to Singapore, either nonstop or with NH.
AC has become a budget airline, so it's difficult to make money flying to SIN if you don't have premium passengers willing to pay. Also for customers willing to pay "premium economy" Singapore has had crazy deals for two years because they have too many PE seats on their special flights from EWR and JFK.
Also SQ has all the connections to Asia, and AC reliability is pathetic which impacts connections.
I totally agree. At least in eco, meals are tiny. Crew often rude. Definetely prefer SQ, TG or CX. Come to think of it, I'd rather fly Ryanair ;-)
Not surprised.
I managed to get my hands on a load sheet of theirs, and it wasn't uncommon for them to block 30+ seats in the dead of winter. Presumably, that was justifiable in 2005, but not so much at today's fuel prices.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see the route return once AC receives their A350s, which would be far more capable on the route, and also spread the per-seat costs a...
Not surprised.
I managed to get my hands on a load sheet of theirs, and it wasn't uncommon for them to block 30+ seats in the dead of winter. Presumably, that was justifiable in 2005, but not so much at today's fuel prices.
I also wouldn't be surprised to see the route return once AC receives their A350s, which would be far more capable on the route, and also spread the per-seat costs a bit better... assuming that SQ doesn't return and reestablish the route in its own right.
AC, will not have these 350s till 2030s, and they will be likely high density so they won't be flying to SIN.
AC needs lots of economy passengers to fill it's planes and SIN isn't that market.
"and they will be likely high density"
Where has Air Canada said that?
It’s sad that SQ and AC have both come a cropper with regard to YVR-SIN service. Meanwhile UA is going very strong indeed with its double-daily SFO-SIN services… And bear in mind that UA and SQ are about as friendly in the Star Alliance as QF and QR are in Oneworld — in other words, they’re sworn enemies! Is SFO (or SEA, which DL will use as its gateway to SIN) that much more lucrative than YVR?!
A family of four in SF making less than $156,650 is considered low-income, so yes.
lol @ asking if SFO is more lucrative than another city