RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 6, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3084 times:
I think the loss of UA's JFK-HKG route is due to the fact UA doesn't have a plane that can fly this route completely full economically. Also, it's not a good origin and destination (O & D) route like ORD-HKG, LAX-HKG and SFO-HKG.
I think CO will continue their EWR-HKG flights, and CX's HKG-JFK flights will use two 193-seat A340-300's until the A346 becomes available.
Globetrotter From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 174 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3034 times:
This news certainly begs the question: how is Continental faring with their EWR-HKG flight? Sounds as if the latest Airways article might shed some light. Can anyone summarize the article for us non-subscribers? Thanks.
Artsyman From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4748 posts, RR: 32
Reply 11, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2961 times:
The article is too long to get into details, but for those interested, the EWR>HKG has been very successful for Continental thus far. Loads have generally been about 85% capacity, although I know plenty of people that have tried non-revving on the flight 99 and got bumped as it keeps going out full
SJC>SFO From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2908 times:
HAHA. yes this is how it works. The flights out of EWR are going out full because of the enormous feeder traffic. Return flights are going out 70% full because of the lack of asian feeder flights. The average coming out to 85%. makes sense to me..... except for the fact that those who make the flight out to HKG do have to return at some point.... oh well schools is out FDS!
FLY777UAL From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4512 posts, RR: 3
Reply 15, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 2843 times:
According to Graham Atkinson, the last flight from New York will be on August 29th, the last flight from Hong Kong will be August 30th. The many restrictions placed on this flight to Hong Kong as well as the economic climate at the present time are the two factors which contributed to the cancellation. With the JFK-HKG flight, the restrictions prevent United from engaging in third country code-sharing flights with alliance partners beyond Hong Kong to other Asian destinations. Without these code-shares to Hong Kong, the feed to each airline's network is severely reduced.
No jobs will be lost, and United will continue to serve the US-Hong Kong market through Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Tokyo
I'm definitly gettin' on that flight before August 29th!
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8212 posts, RR: 4
Reply 16, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2786 times:
I think UA's SFO/LAX-HKG flights will definitely continue. Mostly due to the feeder traffic to SFO and LAX from other parts of the USA, not to mention the fact Los Angeles and San Francisco have large enough ethnic Chinese to support the flight year-round in both directions.
Dynkrisolo From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 1877 posts, RR: 7
Reply 21, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2757 times:
IMO, the 3rd country code-share restriction excuse is just for face saving. The same restriction applies to the ORD-HKG service. Why haven't they pulled the plug on the ORD-HKG service? Because they have the monopoly on the route. The NYC-HKG market does not have enough premium traffic to support three nonstop services. That's why UA is pulling out of the market a few days before CX is to start their own HKG-JFK nonstop. This is not a coincidence.
Anyhow, I think UA is quite mean. They waited until CX committed to the route with three specially configured low density A340s. CX will not be able to make money with the low density A340s. CX's own nonstop service will take away premium traffic from their HKG-YVR-JFK B744 service. CX will likely be losing money on both JFK flights. To reconfigure the low density A340s will be too costly, so CX is stuck with the HKG-JFK flight. A possible solution is to downgrade the B744 service. In short, methinks UA has put CX in a very awkward position.
Co/ba From United States of America, joined May 2001, 399 posts, RR: 3
Reply 22, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 2751 times:
CO's loads for flt 99 are normaly very close to capacity. The return flt 98 usualy isn't as high but I've seen it come back pretty full a couple of times.
I didn't see the article but I saw a piece on Discovery or learning channel called "Wonders Of The World" that did a long segment on flt 99/98.
Klwright69 From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 2311 posts, RR: 3
Reply 23, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2732 times:
I went on and on and on about this in another thread recently... I asserted that this route was a RIDICULOUS move for UA and made no economic sense for them whatsoever.......The SOLE reason for this move was to ONE-UP Continental and take some of the spotlight off them for starting this route...
Anyone care to disagree NOW !?!?
Furthermore, the fact that UA put a 747 on the route and not a 777 didn't even pass the laugh test in my mind... More proof they just had to do it bigger and better... On that same thread a number of people said they were so sure that of CO,CX, and UA; CO was going to be the one to get clobbered by UA, despite their hub there. One poster said UA "got in over their heads" with this route and he was chastised by some of the other posters with the view i just described before..
BarfBag From India, joined Mar 2001, 2386 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (14 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2712 times:
I dont understand why UA had to take up JFK-HKG at all. Why didn't they do IAD-HKG ? They have a hub at Dulles, but not at JFK. At IAD they could have fed the HKG flight better. Any ideas ? Was the distance too long ? I didnt know IAD was *that* far from JFK!
: Of course UA had to 'one-up' Continental! What do you think they are? Crazy!?! The reason why third city ticketing doesn't really matter to the ORD-HK
: Anyway,i think UA can fly HKG-IAD on 777-222ERs,they have hub in IAD,and distance between HKG-IAD is a little-bit longer than HKG-EWR,so,they still ca
: and then tell u a fact,about the successful flight HKG-ORD When this flights started in 1996,the passanger loan is very low,lower than UA820/821 durin
28 The Coachman
: VH-ANA, What are you trying to say? I can't understand that at all. Dynkrisolo, IMHO, I reckon that's nonsense. The fact that UA pulled out a few days
: Coachman: They will have a good chance making money with the A346, but they don't have much a chance to make money on a 191-seat A343. They will need
: Dynkrisolo, I don't think downgrading the HKG-YVR-JFK route to an A340-300 is such a good idea. The reason is simple: Vancouver, BC has a very large e
31 The Coachman
: Dynkrisolo, With the A340-300 carrying so few pax, they can load up more on cargo, something the A340-300 has an advantage over the B747-400 (if I'm n
32 Alpha 1
: On the point of UA possibly running IAD-HKG. Techincally, I imagine it's feesable, but I'll bet their load factors would have been no better. Washingt
33 Airbus A3XX
: I guess the reason for the poor load is no one would like to try on UA's poor 747 service(in terms of seat comfort) on such a long flight
: Airbus -- the same seat pitch as EVERYONE else ------------------------------- and ORD-HKG loads have never fallen below 3 digits .. EVER... this come
: Regarding the issue on fifth freedom and onward flight rights from HKG, I am wondering what are the specific rules in the bilateral. UA does operate 8
: It's not the lack of fifth freedom rights by United, it's just the lack of the ability to code-share beyond Hong Kong, which is especially important t
: Just another piece of rumor coming out of Elk Grove is that the RTW flights may be the next to be axed - possibly as soon as October, but almost defin
: fifth freedom right is one of the reasons cited by United other then code sharing.
: PA006 - 5th freedom rights are not relevant in this situation because the flight is between the UNITED STATES (of which UA is a designated flag carrie
: Of course I know what 5th freedom rights means. To clarify in case you miss my point. United cited lack of 5th freedom rights as one of the reasons wh
: United is limited to the number of local travelers it can carry into New Delhi. United is having MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR problems with it's ground handler a
: Hi All, To clear up Cathay Pacific's operations in YVR...the loads are very high between Vancouver and Hong Kong. All year long there are 4 YVR-HKG fl
43 The Coachman
: That would have been me, Richard. Sorry about that. I was obviously misinformed. But it has to be admitted that, as you point out, that CX probably ha
: FLY777UAL: UA is able to fill the ORD-HKG flights partly because it has a good feed at ORD, but more importantly, it is the only airline flying nonsto
: It looks to me that UALis moving everything to IAd as an Easten hub because JFK is DL and AA territory and they are playing safe. Remeber that UAL's r