Fly_airbus From Australia, joined Oct 2000, 41 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 5776 times:
I am absolutely positive that they are not starting triple daily from August - there has been rumour that they might start the third service in August with a few flights a week, leading to triple daily by late Oct.
Kaitak From Ireland, joined Aug 1999, 12428 posts, RR: 37
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 months 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5702 times:
Maybe the confusion arose from the recent bilateral deal announced between HK and Australia; there will be a HK carrier flying a new service between HK and Sydney, but this will be Dragonair. Can't rule out a third CX flight, of course, but with such a number of flights, surely it would make more sense to increase capacity on existing flights, for example by using 744s instead of A330s.
Chinaeastern From China, joined Apr 2004, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 5500 times:
It's kind of unfare now as KA will be able to operate HKG-SYD route and will have a much better connection to any cities in mainland over CX. Even if CX get the right to fly to PVG 3 times daily, still not fare regarding to its size. what the hell those authorities are doing these days
Carnoc From China, joined Oct 2001, 875 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 5407 times:
Well, the authorities in China have to consider other Mainland-based carriers as well (although KA does want to play the game with Cathay Pacific as well).
If MU hasn't always put STRONG objections to Cathay Pacific's proposal of entering the Shanghai market, then I do believe it would be a lot easier for Cathay Pacific to be approved by the Civil Aviation Administration of China (MU had publicly put strong objections to Cathay Pacific on its plan in entering China at least three or four times [which two of them were being reported by local media])...
So, blame MU first, and the government authorities come next...
Carnoc From China, joined Oct 2001, 875 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 months 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 5221 times:
Nope, MU isn't owned by CAAC, it is partly owned by Chinese government (no doubt, the government ownership is over 50%), but not CAAC [CAAC is only an acting department, which in charges civil aviation affairs, under the China's Central Government].
Also, MU's private ownership has risen dramatically in last couple fo years, especially in late 2003 & early this year [mainly through share purchasing].
Cathay250 From Hong Kong, joined Aug 1999, 220 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5040 times:
Sorry but i just can't get the idea of blaming MU of not allowing CX fly to Shanghai, and gov't next.
As what Carnoc suggested, MU was owned over 50% by the govt and CAAC is govt agency, I just can't seperate two of them when looking at who oppose CX back to China, also i would wonder why MU has such great power to say who can land in PVG.
And it's definitely an unfair game, KA gets Tokyo, Sydney, Bangkok, Taipei, and whenever they get the right, they can operate a reasonable frequency on these routes. But on the other hand they opposite CX to fly to Beijing Shanghai and Xiamen, saying that's their only profitable route, and recently, they opposite CRairways's application to Gualin, Chengsha, Tinjian etc saying they are still losing money on the route!!!! The mainland Chinese fear competition is the conclusion i can think of.
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9168 posts, RR: 15
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4970 times:
Heard that KA wants HKG-LHR too. What aircraft will they use between HKG and SYD? A 330-300s I guess? With or without PTVs? Without I guess in order to keep the cost low? Actually any PTVs on their business class?
Guess CX already got the rights between HKG and Shanghai.
What's up with HKG-SYD lately? Used to be full. What about HKG-LHR? Heard that its full all year round.
Senliture From Australia, joined May 2000, 431 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 4950 times:
KA is now owned by a Chinese company while CX's largest shareholder is the British Swire Group. Now you get why Chinese government doesn't want CX to fly to China? CX has the highest service level among China-HKG legs, leading them by a hell lot. If CX joins the market the other airlines especially their business class' business will have direct impact. That is a dirty trick. KA just want to stop CX to expand in China by using political tricks while their biggest emery is themselves, their services is bad compare to CX. Remember the Beijing-Hong Kong flight of CX? Even thought CX can only take the bad time slot and 3 times a week, they are still doing very well. They don't want that to happen for Shanghai legs.
: Agreed with Senliture. KA's profitability will be seriously affected if CX runs HKG-Shanghai and HKG-Xiamen, two major profitable routines of KA. KA c
26 United Airline
: Any PTVs on KA's A 330 Business Class??? Will they install PTVs specially for HKG-SYD?????
27 The Coachman
: May is generally quiet, once school holidays start in the Northern summer, HKG is full. I have a relative at CX, says the schedules are packed for sum
: all KA aircraft once got refurbrished will have PTV on first class and business only.. no PTV will be available for economy class... check out this we
: Calvin99: all KA aircraft once got refurbrished will have PTV on first class and business only.. no PTV will be available for economy class... Just a
: thanx Cx251 for the correction.. i find it realli surprising that no PTV available for J..!!