Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Cathay: LHR-JFK Really Starting?  
User currently offlineMozart From Luxembourg, joined Aug 2003, 2239 posts, RR: 13
Posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3751 times:

I haven't heard about this in a long time.

Has any confirmation come through that CX will really start LHR-JFK?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineAirbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8663 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3694 times:

If this really happens I bet SIA will be really pissed  Smile They've been trying for years.

User currently offlineMoolies From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3660 times:

who is SIA?

Dont have a clue.


User currently offlineCathay Pacific From Australia, joined May 2000, 1864 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3630 times:

An interesting article from the Hong Kong Standard:

Cathay puts its trans-Atlantic plans on hold
Keith Wallis

Cathay Pacific has put plans to launch trans-Atlantic flights on the backburner amid rising concern that the European Commission (EC) will object to the terms of last autumn's air pact between Hong Kong and Britain.

An airline insider said: ``The trans-Atlantic flights have become a low priority.''

He was speaking following initial feedback from officials and other sources about the deal that would allow the airline to operate round-the-world flights.

Cathay Pacific will still lobby in Brussels in support of the pact, but it is concentrating on increasing flight frequencies and launching services to other destinations.

By comparison, Virgin Atlantic remains optimistic the deal, which will also enable it to fly from Hong Kong to Australia, will win the green light from the commission.

Virgin Asia regional manager Mackenzie Grant said it still hopes to launch flights between Hong Kong and Australia by the end of the year. He said Virgin founder Richard Branson has written to the commission expressing support.

British Airways and British Midland have also contacted the commission, but they are believed to have expressed reservations.

British Airways is against Virgin being allowed to fly to Sydney, and British Midland has questioned whether allowing Cathay Pacific to fly across the Atlantic is in the best interests of the British travelling public.

Under the terms of the deal, the entire agreement has to pass EC scrutiny. ``It passes or falls as a package. People can't start taking bits out of it,'' the insider said.

Consequently, it only needs the EC to object to Cathay's trans-Atlantic rights and the pact will be in shreds.

Hong Kong negotiators insist the EC should be given the opportunity not to object to the agreement before it is formally ratified.

This is to stop the commission, which believes air services agreed by one member state should be open to other members, challenging the legality of the deal once it has been signed.

The agreement also ends all restrictions on passenger and cargo services between Hong Kong and Britain. This means existing carriers may operate as many flights as they think are financially viable.


http://www.thestandard.com.hk/thestandard/news_detail_frame.cfm?articleid=44678&intcatid=1

[Edited 2004-01-15 16:54:34]


cathay pacific, now you're really flying
User currently offlineTURBOJETMAN From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 27 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3625 times:

SIA = Singapore Airlines.

And highly doubtful any other career aside from the BIG four will be granted authority in this market. Unless there is some renegotiations of landing rights the doors seem to be bolted shut on this route.


User currently offlineAA623BDLSJU From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 354 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3516 times:

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Bermuda II law only allows 2 carriers from the US and the UK to fly JFK-LHR, LHR-JFK?

So, if this is certain then neither CX nor SQ can apply for those traffic rights.


User currently offlineBobnwa From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 6537 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3489 times:

Neither SQ or CX is from the UK or the US so they don't come under the Bermuda II agreement. Air India currently flies from JFK to LHR.

User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

SQ even got the go-ahead for LHR-JFK flights from UK authorities, but the US denied SQ landing rights at JFK for reasons i'm not sure.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineAA623BDLSJU From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 354 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3438 times:

Oh yeah. I forgot that AI had JFK-LHR service.

User currently offlineNickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3358 times:

NZ and KU also fly LHR-USA. LAX and JFK respectively.

User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13745 posts, RR: 19
Reply 10, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3296 times:

"SQ even got the go-ahead for LHR-JFK flights from UK authorities, but the US denied SQ landing rights at JFK for reasons i'm not sure."

Other way round.

The United States of American and the Republic of Singapore have an Open Skies agreement - showing the way to other countries around the world - so embattled in their own strife of trying to hold all the cards that the way forward is Open Skies. Even before this, the former had already given Singapore Airlines Limited the green light to operate flights between LHR and JFK - one single daily flight.

The UK Labour Government's White Paper of 1999 (or 1998) called for a promotional of freer bilateral air agreements. From my tone, it is quite obvious that Labour has forgotten this - losing a member in the process.

Hence, it is therefore correct that the European Union strike down this absurd air services agreement between the United Kingdom and the territory that is home to the particular air transportation company being discussed in the starter post. EC has made it quite clear that such agreements are illegal. However, having said that, I see little movement on the EC's side to counter-act with their own European-wide neogtiations.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineKlyk1980 From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 153 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 3056 times:

Recently CX is going to create a Crew base in LHR. Currently Cathay with 3 daily non-stops betwen HKG and LHR daily. The set up of a Crew Base can be considered as the starting point that CX is going to use LHR as a transfer point in its network. Just like the function of BKK and YVR.

Definitely concerns from the Big 4 and also SQ. It will going to be very interesting because BA/AA/CX are in the same alliance(OneWorld) and VS support as well because VS wants the HKG-SYD. If CX finally award the right, SQ will become the major loser. Honestly I don't foresee the participation of CX in LHR-JFK will harm the Big 4 because the maximum frequency of CX can afford on this route maybe just a daily flight. But stretgically, CX can create the only round-the-world itinerary by one single airline (HKG-LHR-JFK-YVR-HKG) if they are allowed to fly transatlantic.


User currently offlineRichard28 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2003, 1633 posts, RR: 6
Reply 12, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Whilst I can understand BMI's objections (I cannot understand BA's), I hope that VS get to go to Oz, I'm due to fly later this year, and would love to be able to get the VS product and also some more flying club miles by going VS.

CX would also increase competition on the LHR-JFK route - this can only be good news.

By the way, it is interesting that BA is objecting to CX - this cant play well in Oneworld meetings??!!


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3420 posts, RR: 16
Reply 13, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 2940 times:

Why aren't any of the US carriers making a stink about this? I would assume that the US Gov't wouldn't just allow this unless another domestic carrier gets a chance to serve the route again. This little bone given to CX probably hasn't been agreed upon the feds. If it has, and I was DL, NW, CO, US, etc. i'd be pissed.

User currently offlineRJpieces From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

Air India has been operating JFK-LHR longer than any other carrier on the route today.

User currently offline747firstclass From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2800 times:

It is my understanding that the US gave CX the ok to fly LHR-JFK never dreaming that the UK would give permission.

User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 16, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Cathay are still hopeful, but with the high demand elsewhere on our network, the LHR-JFK has been put on the backburner while we persue more worthwile interests.

User currently offlineNethkt From Thailand, joined Apr 2001, 1093 posts, RR: 3
Reply 17, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2593 times:

I would love to say that CX, SQ or EK would do well in LON-NYC routes.

Their in-flights services and entertainment system are far better than those airlines in Europe.

Lower fares would give them more chances to compete.  Smile



Let's just blame it on yields.
User currently offlineEx_SQer From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 1436 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2422 times:

SQ even got the go-ahead for LHR-JFK flights from UK authorities, but the US denied SQ landing rights at JFK for reasons i'm not sure.

Not quite, they got the go-ahead, but without fifth freedom rights.


User currently offlineCHANGYOU From Singapore, joined Nov 2003, 271 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 2263 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Are CX hiring crew to be base in LHR from SEA? I heard they had application for internal transfer from existing HKG base crew. Any CX staff in here knows anything about it?

User currently offlineCx flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 20, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

I believe that the LHR base is only open to cabin crew who are already serving with Cathay, and not immediately to new cabin crew, but I could well be wrong.

User currently offlineDonder10 From Canada, joined Oct 2001, 6660 posts, RR: 21
Reply 21, posted (10 years 11 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2158 times:

Whilst I can understand BMI's objections (I cannot understand BA's), I

Aren't BA's objectives to do with not being able to fly LHR-PVG-OZ?


Cx Flyboy,
are all of your pilots based in HK?


User currently offlineB-HOP From Hong Kong, joined Nov 2000, 657 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (10 years 11 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1991 times:

CX flyboy: -

No, in their website, they said they are taking new cabin crew with UK resident status (I assume British passport and NI), I am interested, do you know how do the roster for YVR based cabin crew look like? Is it YVR to HKG and JFK only? Or YVR-HK-somewhere else? Many thanks?

Dondor 10

I beleive they have bases in NZ, Aus, UK, Canada, Us and maybe S. Africa

Regards
Kev



Live life to max!!!
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 LHR-JFK posted Tue Jan 10 2006 15:25:55 by BA380
Cathay Pacific LHR-JFK? posted Mon Dec 1 2003 01:23:27 by United777
Cathay Pacific Hopeful Of LHR-JFK Flights posted Sat Sep 6 2003 08:25:15 by AirVB
BA113 LHR-JFK On This Friday (15th Sept). posted Wed Sep 13 2006 12:08:00 by BAW076
Egyptair Increases LHR, JFK And JNB Flights posted Thu Jan 26 2006 14:46:14 by Horus
UA Trims LHR-JFK Route This Winter. posted Fri Nov 11 2005 17:09:31 by Timetable
Has LAX Overtaken LHR/JFK For Int'l Passengers? posted Thu Nov 10 2005 14:15:14 by Juventus
UA777's On UA957.LHR-JFK! posted Tue Oct 25 2005 18:55:34 by Timetable
British Airways LHR-JFK posted Tue Sep 20 2005 18:50:47 by RAMPRAT980
Cancelled LHR-JFK 957 Restart It For Summer? posted Fri Sep 2 2005 23:26:06 by Unitedgirlie