MCOGVADCA From China, joined Oct 2006, 442 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 9494 times:
TPE-HKG flights are already seeing a fare increase. I'm paying double the price for my flight next week than I did two weeks ago (and thats not due to my schedule constraints, its the cheapest fare that week)
12 months: mco fra ory nce mxp doh pvg hkg bkk zrh iah lhr gva iad clt lax nrt sin mnl ceb del jai gay vns szx zuh
Paomien From Taiwan, joined Mar 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8815 times:
Quoting FlyDreamliner (Reply 7): Makes good sense, with EVA's 777-300ERs on that route now too, it seems like it has ample capacity between CI and BR. I wouldn't be surprised to see the both of them scale back in some way.
The thing is, most people who fly CI won't go to BR, and vice versa ... BR flies into EWR, which is a big inconvenience for those of us that live far away ... I sure hope CI doesn't scale back too much on their TPE-ANC-JFK-ANC-TPE route ... it would put a jam in my schedule ... I fly it too much ...
Foppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 737 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 8770 times:
What about SFO and LAX routes? It seems to me that those two North American destinations are the most profitable. My family travels frequently on CI 005/006/007/008 (LAX) and CI 003/004 (SFO) and we always pretty much see full flights.
I wouldn't mind flying on A343 though.. I've never flown in one before .
Quoting Paomien (Reply 8): The thing is, most people who fly CI won't go to BR, and vice versa ...
Come to think about it, we've ALWAYS flown CI and really never thought about BR! LOL!
Coolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (4 years 11 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8368 times:
The 10% is mainly effective on North America routes. There will be about a total of 200 passenger flights canceled from June to September (around 100 in June) and 150 cargo flights canceled from June to August (around 50 in June). However, no routes to Europe will be reduced.
All dates listed are departure dates from Taipei, which also means no plane to fly back.
Hong Kong routes: 1-3 frequencies will be reduced on select dates. More frequencies may be reduced in July if charter flights begin between China and Taiwan during the weekends.
Japan routes: All destinations will have reduced frequencies to combine flights on certain dates.
Oceania routes: Brisbane has select dates canceled (such as 6/9). Both Brisbane and Sydney will have reduced frequencies to combine flights on certain dates.
South Asia known routes: Delhi has select dates canceled (such as 6/9, 6/10) throughout the summer.
Southeast Asia known routes: Bangkok (6/10), Penang (6/10), Phnom Pheh (6/6) has select dates canceled throughout the summer. Frequencies to Bangkok with Europe being the destinations will not be affected.
North America routes (affected the most): Seattle is reduced to three weekly starting 01JUL08, possibly eliminated by 28OCT08. Also, certain dates are canceled in June.
- 6/2, 6/3, 6/9, 6/17, 6/24, 6/25
Vancouver is replaced by the two class A340-300 starting 01JUL08, frequencies not reduced officially. The aircraft swap has caused certain dates to be overbooked already. Also, certain dates are canceled during the summer.
- 6/9, 6/16, 7/7, 7/17, 7/21, 7/28
San Francisco have certain dates canceled, frequencies not yet reduced officially.
- 7/22, 7/31, 8/1, 8/27, 9/4, 9/11, 9/18, 9/25
Los Angeles have certain dates canceled (7 in July, 8 in August, 9 in September), frequencies not yet officially reduced, but possible after summer, to eliminate CI 005/006. CI 007/008 remains untouched.
- Known dates for cancellation on CI005/006: 7/9, 7/16, 7/23, 8/8, 8/13, 8/20, 8/22, 8/26, 8/27, 8/29, 8/31, 9/2, 9/3, 9/15, 9/17, 9/19, 9/22, 9/24, 9/26, 9/29
New York, JFK seems to be the only one untouched...
EVA won't be touching their routes till September, where 3 frequencies to LAX and SGN will be eliminated for sure, and SFO will have frequencies reduced as well. From September to December, around 70 to 80 frequencies will be reduced on select routes.
Coolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 7756 times:
Quoting Coolfish1103 (Reply 11): The 10% is mainly effective on North America routes. There will be about a total of 200 passenger flights canceled from June to September (around 100 in June) and 150 cargo flights canceled from June to August (around 50 in June). However, no routes to Europe will be reduced.
Update: There will be a total of around 700 flights canceled from June to September, including both Cargo and Passenger routes.
Foppishbum From Taiwan, joined Mar 2006, 737 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 7080 times:
Quoting FlyingDoctorWu (Reply 14):
Did Airliners.net start recognizing Taiwan as something other than a region after 2006? And are there anymore specified regions on Airliners.net (Tibet?)
Originally A.net list us as "Taiwan" and then in 2006, they changed it to "Taiwan Region". I don't know if they changed it back to Taiwan. I'll check..
Edit: They still list us as "Taiwan Region". I think the registration form has an option for Taiwan but when updating your profile, there's only option for "Taiwan Region". And yes, there are options for regions like England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales etc and there is United Kingdom. Too bad A.net don't have States for US.
Coolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 6954 times:
Quoting Paomien (Reply 13):
wow, that's impressive ... the route that they lose the most money on ...
I think they were only losing money on this route because the price for TPE-LAX-TPE and TPE-ANC-JFK-ANC-TPE were the same in the first couple months this year (which makes no sense). Since March, they have raised the JFK fare by quite a bit (or I should say by a lot), so I don't think this route is losing $ in loads. However, CI 005/006 TPE-LAX-TPE actually has a load problem, and is a double daily flight, so that's probably why it's being canceled throughout the summer.
Some statistics from Taoyuan International Airport, but has a problem because Newark (EWR) is not included in the list, which I have no idea why.
Top 10 Most seats occupied (April, 2008)
Rank --- Destination --- # of flights --- Total Seats --- Total Occupied --- % Carried - Notes
01 --- New York, JFK --- 17 --- 6,805 --- 6,442 --- 94.7% --- Outbound only
02 --- Phuket --- 30 --- 4,740 --- 4,460 --- 94.1%
03 --- Guam --- 18 --- 2,844 --- 2,663 --- 93.6%
04 --- Chiang Mai --- 26 --- 4,128 --- 3,815 --- 92.4%
05 --- Frankfurt --- 42 --- 11,592 --- 10,314 --- 89.0%
06 --- Osaka, KIX --- 391 --- 120,089 --- 102,824 --- 85.6%
07 --- Abu Dhabi --- 25 --- 7,825 --- 6,587 --- 84.2% --- Includes traffic from Vienna
08 --- Depensar --- 140 --- 33,184 --- 26,852 --- 80.9%
09 --- Tokyo, NRT --- 814 --- 248,348 --- 200,716 --- 80.8% --- Includes traffic from Honolulu via Tokyo
10 --- Auckland --- 18 --- 4,536 --- 3,559 --- 79.5%
Top 10 Most seats occupied (January to April, 2008)
Rank --- Destination --- # of flights --- Total Seats --- Total Occupied --- % Carried - Notes
01 --- Guam --- 83 --- 13,114 --- 12,157 --- 92.7%
02 --- New York, JFK --- 69 --- 27,547 --- 25,157 --- 91.3% --- Outbound only
03 --- Phuket --- 104 --- 17,982 --- 16,061 --- 89.3%
04 --- Chiang Mai --- 108 --- 17,834 --- 15,782 --- 88.5%
05 --- Honolulu --- 68 --- 19,522 --- 16,608 --- 85.1% --- Does not include traffic via Tokyo
06 --- Anchorage --- 122 --- 44,456 --- 37,142 --- 83.5% --- Inbound only from EWR & JFK
07 --- Abu Dhabi --- 103 --- 32,239 --- 26,024 --- 80.7% --- Includes traffic from Vienna
08 --- Seattle --- 376 --- 112,286 --- 90,385 --- 80.5% --- Includes traffic from Houston in Jan.
09 --- Osaka, KIX --- 1,511 --- 461,650 --- 370,675 --- 80.3%
10 --- Sapporo, CTS --- 482 --- 107,132 --- 85,218 --- 79.5%
I find New York, JFK on the list for both of them... and did not drop even with fare increase in April.
Paomien From Taiwan, joined Mar 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6877 times:
hmm .. i notice it says "outbound only" ... their crew always tells me 012 is always more busy than 011 .. which i find strange .. they always transport people to NY but less people back? hahaha ... I do notice, though, that 012 always carries more passengers than the return 011 ...
You're right, after the April 1 increase, JFK prices are really crazy ... over $8000 for F, $4000 for C .... but I heard LAX has similar increases, too ....
CI 006 has a load problem? wow ... every time I take 005 it's packed to the brim ....
Coolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 6844 times:
Maybe the Fuzhou babysitters carried the babies over and came back on their own? To be honest, I have no idea why the loads are different...! We can investigate at the Anchorage loads from January to April (although it has some passengers from Anchorage and Newark), it has loads of 83.5%, which I guess is the difference you mentioned.
Back in February, Economy tickets for JFK and LAX were both 942 for M Class, 2750 for C Class exiting LAX, and about 3k for JFK (I did not check First Class back then). Right now, it's 1150 (CI 005/006) to 1450 (CI 007/008) for M Class in LAX, and 3650 for C Class exiting LAX (which is still a bit cheaper than JFK, and actually makes sense!).
Well, it's the timing that makes the TPE-LAX-TPE flights weird. CI 006 departing from Taipei gets more passengers than CI 008, and CI 007 departing from Los Angeles gets more passengers than CI 005. However, the CI 005 flight suffered a lot more than CI 008 because there are more transfer problems after landing in TPE than LAX since TPE is the hub for CI... so the loads are the worst in CI 005. In addition, there are some transfer passengers filling up the CI 008 flight because it's a night departure, while not as many for CI 005.
Paomien From Taiwan, joined Mar 2007, 76 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 6654 times:
Quoting Coolfish1103 (Reply 18): Well, it's the timing that makes the TPE-LAX-TPE flights weird. CI 006 departing from Taipei gets more passengers than CI 008, and CI 007 departing from Los Angeles gets more passengers than CI 005. However, the CI 005 flight suffered a lot more than CI 008 because there are more transfer problems after landing in TPE than LAX since TPE is the hub for CI... so the loads are the worst in CI 005. In addition, there are some transfer passengers filling up the CI 008 flight because it's a night departure, while not as many for CI 005.
Coolfish1103 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 384 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 6533 times:
More reliable source from jimyvr of Airline Route News (http://airlineroute.blogspot.com) indicated that 1 frequency will be reduced for sure on the TPE-LAX and TPE-SFO route. The TPE-LAX one will be CI 005/006 on Day 3 departing from TPE, and Day 2 departing from TPE for TPE-SFO.
Awaits for more announcement from jim since all other routes were not indicated... his information is usually the most reliable, better than the media ones for sure. Too bad he is on vacation and won't be updating regularly.
CI's SFO sales office informed us that the SEA flight will be eliminated effective 9/1. Flights from SEA are no longer offered for sale in the CRS after that date. The SEA flight has had good loads year round, but we all know that good loads don't mean good yields! Some of CI's lowest fares from offline points in the US required routing via SEA, so it seems they dumped a lot of low yield economy traffic on this route. They have a similar structure for the LAX flights, always offering the lowest fares on CI005.
"I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is temporary; the evil it does is permanent" - Ghandi
FrmrCAPCADET From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1501 posts, RR: 1 Reply 24, posted (4 years 11 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 6312 times:
Son and his wife just got dumped on the Seattle flight in September. CAL is trying to get them on a flight through SFO, may cost a fair hunk more. We decided if he wants to go in Sept. their offer may be the best. He understands from talking with them that all flights in Seattle are cancelled as of September. Note, similar comments in previous posts this thread.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
25 Paomien: wow...the rumors first said 10/28..now 9/1 is confirmed?
26 Coolfish1103: They won't be able to pick up passengers from ANC to go to SEA or pick up passengers from SEA to go to ANC... The US won't allow that as it will simp
27 Anonms: They should just increase their codeshares with Delta and/or finalize joining SkyTeam.
28 FrmrCAPCADET: Coolfish - thanks for the info, I passed it on to kids.
29 Paomien: does anybody know what is holding this up?
30 Foppishbum: Just taking a wild guess.. China? China Southern just recently joined the SkyTeam, right?[Edited 2008-06-10 01:15:32]
31 Anonms: Unlikely, especially with the KMT in control now. CI and CZ have FF cooperations, IIRC.
32 Trex8: yep I wasn't thinking of local traffic but since direct A343 transpac flights are a little fuel thirsty and 744s may be too big for some markets. Usi
33 LH459: You will note from my profile, I am a travel agent. Furthermore, in spite of the A.net trend, I'm not in the habit of spreading unsubstantiated rumor
34 Paomien: There are two problems I can forsee with this proposition : 1) What happens to the F class customer after transit at ANC? 2) Their 744 has a capacity
35 Coolfish1103: Wouldn't it be better to just send A333 TPE-ANC-SEA? But, I think it's better to start TPE-KIX-SEA... since I recall Japan allowed Seattle to be a fin
36 Anonms: Yes, an incident that wasn't CI's fault. That's totally a contributing factor. "Insiders" said that CI would be joining the alliance late this year.
37 Coolfish1103: Even if it's not CI's fault, it's a CI aircraft that got destroyed in Naha, not BR, NH, JL, or any other airlines. People see what they saw and read
38 Paomien: unfortunately I think any media coverage when it comes to CI's safety is always overly extensive .... that's the baggage they have to carry, even thou
39 Trex8: I wouldn't touch the JFK route/equipment but if we assume they can only partly fill a A343/333 to say a final destination of SEA and somewhere else i
40 Paomien: Lucky for the people flying from SEA and YVR, their A333 doesn't fly to those destinations. I'm not a big fan of their A333 ... the business class in
41 Trex8: they should get a lie flat seat like UA, BA or QRs for biz, I can see using the present A333 J seat for "regional " routes but if they do use them for
42 Coolfish1103: With the fuel cost rising, they probably won't even modify their 744 cabin, I wonder when will they get their lie-flat seats after all. Both the A333
43 Paomien: I agree ... that's why they've received so many complaints on their 74B dynasty class ...
44 Paomien: yeah ... the A343 seats are actually quite comfortable ... their best business class product in the entire fleet, IMO ... I wouldn't mind those inste
45 Warren747sp: You guys are not taking into account CI frequent flyers just not willing to fly Airbus aircraft with CI especially to US market. A few years ago they
46 Paomien: I remember that ... looking back, though, I'd take an A343 to JFK (even though it doesn't offer F) over the current 74A aircraft. At the time, the A3