Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cathay Pacific LHR-JFK?  
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3636 times:

With Cathay Pacififc Airways planning to start HKG-LHR-JFK service I was wondering if CX will still fly the HKG-YVR-JFK route? If they do keep both routes CX will be the only airline to offer around-the-world service.

Also I remember CX tested non-stop HKG-JFK service. What happened to that? Continental Airlines flies Newark-HKG non-stop so why not CX fly HKG-JFK non-stop.

Farhan
Seattle, USA

24 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBenjamin From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 444 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

It IS possible with a 747-400, which I imagine what CX would use. Remember, for a time, UA ran this route (JFK-HKG) with a 744.

User currently offlineUsairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3326 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3605 times:

CO flies their EWR-HKG nonstop over the northpole, cutting the trip by a good number of hours. I think they had to receive some special permissions to fly over Russian airspace, I don't if CX is able to receive those permissions or something along those lines.

UA offered JFK-HKG nonstop but that only lasted for a short time.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3576 times:

The whole reason CX got those nasty A346s was to do HKG-JFK nonstop.

I also highly doubt they'd drop YVR-JFK, as they have full 5th freedoms, and it's reportedly among their most profitable routes.


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 4, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3552 times:

"'Nasty' A346s""

are you mad ?? ! !!

one of the sweetest planes in the sky!

why do you find them "nasty"??


User currently offlineBenjamin From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 444 posts, RR: 1
Reply 5, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3536 times:

"'Nasty' A346s""

are you mad ?? ! !!

one of the sweetest planes in the sky!

why do you find them "nasty"??


OH NO!!!!!! Here comes the war!!! Can we, as a group, avoid turning this thread into A vs. B??


User currently offlinePe@rson From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 19097 posts, RR: 53
Reply 6, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3524 times:

Which is best: Airbus or Boeing?  Wink/being sarcastic Big grin


"Everyone writing for the Telegraph knows that the way to grab eyeballs is with Ryanair and/or sex."
User currently offlineUnited777 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 1657 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3512 times:

Hey man! My topic is about CX and JFK! Not A and B!  Smile Although the A346 is the best looking in the sky right now!  Smile

Farhan Ali
Seattle, USA


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1595 posts, RR: 6
Reply 8, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3492 times:

I did not mean to commence a war with that post - I can't stand those things  Sad . Its just when someone (concordeboy) makes a statement, without any reasoning I like to know the persons reasons/motives.

sorry if it appeared in any way AvB.


Back to the topic, another thread said that CX was considering flying one plane one way around the planet, on a HKG-LHR-JFK-YVR-HKG routing, with another plane doing the opposite - making it a true round the world airline.

I'm glad that this has been agreed, not for CX, but so that I can fly VS down to Oz!!

rich.


User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3454 times:

I'm still curious as to if (and if so, why?!) CX would give up one of its LHR-HKG segments in order to fly to JFK.

Either that; or some way barter more LHR stops away from other airlines, for a decent price, and without BAA objecting...


User currently offlineSydscott From Australia, joined Oct 2003, 2807 posts, RR: 20
Reply 10, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 3412 times:


CX hasn't given up any of its slots for this flight. I don't think you'll see any reduction in flying by CX between LHR-HKG. Virgin already flies to HK and initially services to Sydney will just be an extension of that. Where Virgin plans to get their slots from for the second daily HKG service from LHR I dont know.

As for bartering slots, dont forget that CX is a Oneworld Partner along with BA/QF/AA and a host of others that they might be able to get slots off of if necessary. One thing you can say about Oneworld is that they aren't short of LHR slots to go round!!!!!!!!!!!


User currently offlineN754pr From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3390 times:

At the moment BA fly twice daily to Hong Kong, Virgin Once and Cathay three but I have heard CX are looking at a 4th daily flight!!

User currently offlineCX773 From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2001, 365 posts, RR: 7
Reply 12, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3295 times:

BA will operate the 3rd daily flight from LHR-HKG soon.

User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 759 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3252 times:

Also, for LHR-JFK CX most likely would have late PM departure - no problem for slots. Problem would be arrival slot for JFK-LHR.

But, CX still has a number of freighter flights (5 pw) to LHR, arriving and leaving at "good" times. I expect they will swap these slots for JFK-LHR arrival, and send the freighters to STN or EMA.

BAA will be happy to help, as they don't like slots being "wasted" on freighters (no pax to buy stuff in the shops)


User currently offlineSingaporeFA From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 108 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 3103 times:

SQ must be drooling with envy.....either that or fuming mad because they have been trying for many years to get that route but been unsuccessful.

User currently offlineMohan From India, joined Nov 2003, 78 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3067 times:

I had posted this in regard to Virgin but it has a lot on CX

You see lot of people from Asia like to go to London & then New York, Cathay had been wanting this sector for a long time......and the EU is concerned on LHR-JFK sector not HKG-SYD...........Correct me if i am wrong EU according to me has no say on HKG-SYD sector
The british authorities took this route in bargain for LHR-JFK & Virgins lobbying

I see no reason why EU will not approve this ........

So for CX going to New York via the pacific and not being able to offer London was a drawback, Now with this CX will be able to fly around the world........like Pan AM
CX already does HKG- Vancouver-JFK now they will connect JFK via London.

Also let us not forget CX is creating its own rival on HKG -SYD route, which was dominated by them & Qantas as BA uses SIN, Also they are ready to sacrifise some traffic/profits here and take BA head on on the transatlantic sector...........so you can imagine how important CX feels for the LHR-JFK route


User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 16, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3029 times:


My current understanding of the US-HK bilateral will not permit CX operating LHR-HKG, which means that if CX wants to operate, the US carriers will also be looking to get something from HK in return.

The US-HK bilateral is among the most restrictive among US bilaterals.




Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineDCAYOW From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 591 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3021 times:


replace "HKG" with "JFK" in the above post... sorry... HK-US bilateral does not permit CX operation of LHR-JFK



Retorne ao céu...
User currently offlineConcordeBoy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2954 times:

Not so sure about that DCAYOW,

I believe the issue of LON-NYC was addressed in the most recent talks, in which the HK-USA bilateral was further liberalized.


User currently offlineBuckfifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1316 posts, RR: 20
Reply 19, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2937 times:

And in regards to Mohan's comment, the motivation behind CX's involvement is not as much for onward connection from Asia to JFK, but a direct slice of the lucrative LHR-JFK market itself.

User currently offlineMlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 8
Reply 20, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2903 times:

I was unaware of CX having any 5th freedom rights in the US anyhow, but I guess I was wrong. Guess they're trying to go neck-and-neck with AI!


I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
User currently offlineBuckfifty From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 1316 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2872 times:

If there were no fifth freedom rights involved, it would be practically useless for CX to pursue this matter for so many years, much like how Virgin wanted fifth freedom flights out of HKG for SYD. It would simply be solved by buying ultra longhaul a/c that would fly HKG to JFK nonstop. CX has a strong brand identity with the business community among the British, and to leverage it to its maximum potential would require the LHR-JFK route.

However, this is all academic until the EU ratifies it.

I just find it odd that the battle of the Atlantic has a new entrant bearing the word 'Pacific' in its name...


User currently offlineAhlfors From Canada, joined Oct 2000, 1339 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2808 times:

As far as finding it odd that the new entrant on the Atlantic has 'Pacific' in it's name, what about the new entrant in the Pacific (HKG-SYD) having 'Atlantic' in it's name (i.e. Virgin Atlantic).

User currently offlineFoxBravo From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 2948 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2795 times:

I really don't think CX is interested in carrying passengers from HKG to JFK via LHR, as there are many quicker and easier ways to get between the two cities, including CX's own flight via YVR. Rather, as Buckfifty pointed out, it wants a piece of the LHR-JFK action, where its inflight product could compete very favorably with the existing offerings, even if only offered once a day. As a side benefit, there is also the prestige of operating a round-the-world service.


Common sense is not so common. -Voltaire
User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6533 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (10 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2732 times:

With recent events like 9/11 and SARS, it has shown that regional aviation can be devastated as passengers simply stop flying. Cathay has shown signs recently of wanting to spread out a little to avoid being a victim of a local downturn. Flying transatlantic will definately help, as would SYD-LAX, which was turned down point blank by Australia.

CX have once again seen the airline saved by cargo and therefore are looking into investing significantly with the conversion of ex-BA 744s to add to the fleet, possibly, or possibly not replacing the classic freighters we now operate, which have recently been suffering many technical problems due to the high workloads.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Cathay Pacific LHR-HKG posted Tue Jan 3 2006 16:10:47 by Noelg
Cathay Pacific LHR Base posted Wed Jan 14 2004 22:29:22 by AF Cabin Crew
Cathay Pacific LHR-YYZ & LHR-YVR? posted Fri Sep 19 2003 19:35:55 by Hkg82
Cathay Pacific Hopeful Of LHR-JFK Flights posted Sat Sep 6 2003 08:25:15 by AirVB
Cathay LHR-JFK posted Tue Jan 10 2006 15:25:55 by BA380
Cathay: LHR-JFK Really Starting? posted Thu Jan 15 2004 16:38:24 by Mozart
Cathay Pacific To Introduce Daytime Service To LHR posted Fri Feb 8 2002 09:12:46 by Etravelconsult
Cathay Pacific 747 Engines posted Wed Nov 8 2006 22:41:16 by Qantas744ER
Cathay Pacific To Buy 5 Boeing 747s posted Tue Nov 7 2006 14:29:16 by CaptainTim
Where Will Cathay Pacific's B773ERs Go? posted Tue Nov 7 2006 00:30:12 by Kwcarolma