United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, RR: 17 Posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 7913 times:
CX is interested in HKG-LHR-JFK and they have applied for it for a long time. Any news? Will they start such service anytime soon?
Heard that SQ wants SIN-LHR-JFK too. Any news?
What about Manchester and Moscow? They were all set to fly there. When will service start? Heard that they are still negotiating with the Russian government
In addition to their SIN-FRA-JFK? That seems so ambitious to me on SQ's planning side.
HKG-LHR-JFK. I guess it could work but with the market so competitive as it is already, I have no idea how its going to turn out. They are probably going to code share with BA through OW?
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 2, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 7708 times:
It seems to me that LHR-JFK is just a tremendously overly competitive market and that better opportunities exist elsewhere - like CDG-JFK, where there is more or less a monopoly.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 3, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 7683 times:
What would be so great about Cathay having a LHR to JFK flight. With 3 daily JFK to HKG flightrs already what is the need for an Atlantic flight ? CX doesn't need to do it as a ego trip.
Ktachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1729 posts, RR: 2 Reply 5, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 7468 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 4): Actually Cathay Pacific wants Hong Kong-Sydney-Los Angeles too from what I read
Fares sold for those that are originating in HKG must be extremely cheap if they were going to take such a detour!!!
But QF does these with B747-400ER and CX only has B747-400. So is this going to be severely weight restricted? Because if they were going to fly the twins across the pond, I think there are a lot of E-TOPS restrictions that come into play. Or perhaps an A340?
PanAm330 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2601 posts, RR: 10 Reply 6, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7453 times:
Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 5): But QF does these with B747-400ER and CX only has B747-400.
QF has flown SYD-LAX (and more recently, SFO and YVR) with a standard 744 since they took delivery of them almost 20 years ago.
Superhub From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2006, 476 posts, RR: 0 Reply 7, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7442 times:
I would think this is something they won't want to start now given the economic conditions at the moment.
Quoting United Airline (Reply 4): With CX's top quality service, I am sure they can gain market share in LHR-JFK.
While CX's product might be superior to BA and AA. The key to the JFK/LHR route I think is frequency, which CX will not be able to offer.
In a market dominated by AA/BA, and that they are part of OW, AA/BA would be outraged if CX try to steal their market share. The only way I see CX in this is to operate it in conjunction with AA/BA. i.e. use CX's metal but codeshare with AA/BA, and also have CX prefixes on AA and BA's metals (that will solve the frequency problem but could start a competition problem)
The role CX can play is to steal market share away from other airlines from other alliances (which has a much lower market share). Is it worth it?
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 8, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7417 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 4): With CX's top quality service, I am sure they can gain market share in LHR-JFK.
Actually Cathay Pacific wants Hong Kong-Sydney-Los Angeles too from what I read. Wonder if they have a better chance than SQ
Its probably 10x easier to pass the customers on to fellow OneWorld carriers AA and BA which provide a whopping 12 flights/day on said route (and 3 more on the LHR-EWR route).
Huaiwei From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 7391 times:
Quoting United Airline (Thread starter): CX is interested in HKG-LHR-JFK and they have applied for it for a long time. Any news? Will they start such service anytime soon?
CX has the rights to fly this route since way back in November 2003 (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/cathays-new-york-deal-sparks-anger-737217.html). They have been sitting on their bottoms ever since.
SQ has the rights to fly this route since way back in October 2007 (http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporebusinessnews/view/303608/1/.html). They have been sitting on their bottoms ever since too.
It's huaiwei...not huawei. I have nothing to do with the PRC! :)
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 11, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 6672 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 4): With CX's top quality service, I am sure they can gain market share in LHR-JFK.
BA, AA, and Virgin have high frequency. Delta is struggling with is two 767 daily at odd times. JFK to LHR needs A380's, 744, 777 or A340's no 767 need apply.
Aeropix From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 18 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5293 times:
Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 11): BA, AA, and Virgin have high frequency. Delta is struggling with is two 767 daily at odd times. JFK to LHR needs A380's, 744, 777 or A340's no 767 need apply.
???
If the first 3 have high frequencies (market saturation) and therefore DL struggles filling a rather smaller airplane, why would a new carrier be better with an A380 than a smaller 767?
Viscount724 From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4559 times:
CX is crazy to want to operate 5th freedom service on such a highly competitive route as LHR-JFK where frequency is important for the vital high-yield business market. With one flight a day, their yields would never match BA/AA. 5th freedom carriers almost always have to offer the lowest fares to fill their seats.
With LHR slots so valuable, they'd be better to use it for another LHR-HKG flight and forget about markets where they would never have any visibility. They have enough direct transpacific service HKG-JFK to meet the O&D demand. Nobody would want to fly all the way HKG-JFK with a stop in LHR so all they'd be getting on the LHR-JFK sector would be lower yield filler traffic. SQ has a similar situation FRA-JFK where they often have the lowest fares.
Mysterzip From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 157 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 4046 times:
This has been a rumor for a long time, but with CX cutting flights to North America and shrinking capacity, this may not happen for some time. Plus, with the business winding down on NYC-LON market, it may have been shelved.
Quoting Superhub (Reply 7): While CX's product might be superior to BA and AA. The key to the JFK/LHR route I think is frequency, which CX will not be able to offer.
In a market dominated by AA/BA, and that they are part of OW, AA/BA would be outraged if CX try to steal their market share. The only way I see CX in this is to operate it in conjunction with AA/BA. i.e. use CX's metal but codeshare with AA/BA, and also have CX prefixes on AA and BA's metals (that will solve the frequency problem but could start a competition problem)
I'm sure AA could place a codeshare on the flight to become more competitive. BA could do the same, but I doubt they will.
MarcoPoloWorld From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 600 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3342 times:
Would be great to be able to make it around the world with CX, though.
OldAeroGuy From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3206 posts, RR: 66 Reply 16, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3090 times:
Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 5): But QF does these with B747-400ER and CX only has B747-400. So is this going to be severely weight restricted? Because if they were going to fly the twins across the pond, I think there are a lot of E-TOPS restrictions that come into play. Or perhaps an A340?
CX's 180 min ETOPS 773ER's can fly SYD-LAX with no route restrictions.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
Jfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 7343 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 3044 times:
Quoting Aeropix (Reply 12): If the first 3 have high frequencies (market saturation) and therefore DL struggles filling a rather smaller airplane, why would a new carrier be better with an A380 than a smaller 767?
I said the route needs a bigger then 767 to be competitive as a 767 is NOT competitive with the 777, 744, A380(when it comes to BA or VS) and A340's. I never said "DL needs a A380". Delta has A330's, 744 and 777 to fly to LHR. Delta could fly a JFK-NRT-JFK-LHR-JFK rotation with 3 744's.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15 Reply 19, posted (4 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2803 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 4): With CX's top quality service, I am sure they can gain market share in LHR-JFK.
Actually Cathay Pacific wants Hong Kong-Sydney-Los Angeles too from what I read. Wonder if they have a better chance than SQ
Man alive, SQ wants to toss UA under the bus on this route and now CX wants to try to take business from QF... I doubt as if the US or Australia really care to do much to allow foreign competitors on to this route to be honest. The next airline to service after Virgin Australia will likely be DL (I don't know whether on 777 or 747).
Quoting Babybus (Reply 17): I think SQ and CX running LHR-JFK would be very successful. The only decent quality airline on the route is BA.
That's interesting - AF is on the route and they offer a product at least the equal of BA. Frequency often trumps minor improvements in service. By your reasoning, SQ would own JFK-FRA, but in fact have far lower load factors than LH or DL, whose service may be deemed inferior.
"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8792 posts, 
From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1729 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, 
From Singapore, joined Oct 2008, 1086 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Oct 2006, 21465 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3512 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
