cslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 813 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10272 times:
Speaking of LHR-HKG, why don't CX and BA code-share with each other on this route since both airlines are OneWorlld members and both fly 340 and 777 aircraft often within 30 minutes of each other? If BA and AA can have a JV why can CX and BA?
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6364 posts, RR: 56 Reply 3, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10192 times:
Quoting cslusarc (Reply 2): If BA and AA can have a JV why can CX and BA?
CX can easily fill its flights all by itself. LHR remains one of the most profitable routes on the network. No need to 'get help' by starting a JV or even codeshare with BA.
skipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 2425 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 9163 times:
Quoting lhr380 (Reply 7): As per the above comments, a third flight is being added, but I don't believe it is every day. It will work well with a 772 773 and 744 on the route.
When I first moved down back in 2005 they had three B744s daily on LHR-HKG, so it's still a little down on what it's been quite recently. The B77W is a good product immprovement though!
LHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 745 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 5461 times:
Quoting cslusarc (Reply 2): Speaking of LHR-HKG, why don't CX and BA code-share with each other on this route since both airlines are OneWorlld members and both fly 340 and 777 aircraft often within 30 minutes of each other? If BA and AA can have a JV why can CX and BA?
The competition authorities would not allow it as they would dominate the route where the only competition is VS and NZ.
I don't think BA and CX are the best of buddies either.
United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8803 posts, RR: 17 Reply 11, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 5296 times:
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9): When I first moved down back in 2005 they had three B744s daily on LHR-HKG, so it's still a little down on what it's been quite recently. The B77W is a good product immprovement though!
Quoting skipness1E (Reply 9): When I first moved down back in 2005 they had three B744s daily on LHR-HKG, so it's still a little down on what it's been quite recently. The B77W is a good product immprovement though!
In the shorter term I think this will depend on the success of the new arrangement between QF and BA whereby the new three-times-weekly BA rotation to HKG will be timed to link with the QF rotation.
Previously only VS, NZ and CX have timed flights to link the UK to Australasia through HKG. The BA and QF JSA routings have been through BKK and SIN. If customers give the thumbs up to the new QF/BA arrangement then I can see the three-times-weekly flight quickly expanding to five, six or seven times weekly. With the QF cut backs and BA adding a 744 and three 77Ws to their active fleet in the coming months there seems no problem in finding the metal to do this. The only problem might be slots at LHR.
If customers do not like the change of aircraft at HKG then the BA/QF caution in starting with a three-times-a-week service will be justified. But I do not see why this should be a problem with the success that the likes of EK and SQ have had on the Kangaroo route as their services almost inevitably require a change of aircraft at DXB and SIN respectively.
gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 749 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4806 times:
Hmmmm. The 777 is a lovely aircraft to look at (especially the 300-ER variant with its massive powerplants) and certainly keeps an airline's bean-counters pretty happy........ however as a long haul aircraft, from a pax point of view, it's a significant downgrade from a 744 or A380. Feels far less spacious inside, has less reduntant "walk around" room, is only single deck, and 10 abreast - which is becoming commonplace in Y - is awful.
When I fly anything over eight hours these days I specifically seek out airlines that operate an A-380 or 744 on the route.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4646 times:
Quoting gasman (Reply 14): Feels far less spacious inside, has less reduntant "walk around" room, is only single deck, and 10 abreast - which is becoming commonplace in Y - is awful.
BA's 777s are not 10 abreast........are they. Please say no. 10 abreast on a 77 is rediculous. I would avoid any airline like the plaque if I was faced with that. THat said if its 9 abreat or even flying up front the 777 is my favourite aircraft and would happily take it, there is more than enough room to have a little wander if thats what you want to do (within reason)
As for BA and CX, I think irrespective of how well LHR - HKG performs they should work more closely together. THat seems to have been a probelm in the past with JL on OW. The S### hit the fan with them and then the light bulb came on with OW carriers who realised they would be in a lot of pain if they lost them and now working forward I am sure working closer together they will all see the benefits.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2604 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4646 times:
Quoting VV701 (Reply 12): In the shorter term I think this will depend on the success of the new arrangement between QF and BA whereby the new three-times-weekly BA rotation to HKG will be timed to link with the QF rotation.
I'm not sure that the flights are actually going to link are they? At BKK there is a 5+ hour wait in each direction with the new QF flight, so they are obviously trying to funnel LHR/SYD pax through SIN rather than HKG or BKK.
Quoting United Airline (Reply 13): So you mean there is a chance that QF's HKG-LHR will return if people are not happy with the current arrangement?
Not going to happen. Those travelling to LHR (or SYD) will be funneled through SIN, with the new arrangement more interested in keeping the market that likes to break the journey (which is a big chunk of the market, I would imagine).
Quoting gasman (Reply 14): it's a significant downgrade from a 744 or A380. Feels far less spacious inside, has less reduntant "walk around" room, is only single deck, and 10 abreast - which is becoming commonplace in Y - is awful.
I don't agree. The 777 in 9 abreast has wider aisles and seats, much more modern bathrooms and galleys, bigger bins and (generally) better IFE. The upper deck is only relevant for J pax. 10 abreast is not becoming commonplace - there are only a handful out of the dozens of operators, so that's a major exaggeration IMO. Besides BA has 9 abreast with a product that looks like it totally smashes the seats/IFE on the 747s. There were never any A380s on HKG-LHR anyway...
gasman From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 749 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4594 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 16): The 777 in 9 abreast has wider aisles and seats
Yes - agree - a 9 abreast 777 is quite competitive in terms of pax comfort to a 10 abreast 744.
I still maintain the 744 cabin "feels" more spacious though. Is it something to do with the sidewalls being more vertical? I don't know, but I perceive this greater spaciousness even looking at the cabin pictures on a.net.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2604 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4352 times:
Quoting gasman (Reply 17): I still maintain the 744 cabin "feels" more spacious though. Is it something to do with the sidewalls being more vertical? I don't know, but I perceive this greater spaciousness even looking at the cabin pictures on a.net.
True -- I think the shape of the bins plays a big role as well (ie being able to see higher up the walls). The 747 is by no means a cramped aircraft in any case...
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 20, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4230 times:
Quoting UAL777UK (Reply 15): As for BA and CX, I think irrespective of how well LHR - HKG performs they should work more closely together. THat seems to have been a probelm in the past with JL on OW. The S### hit the fan with them and then the light bulb came on with OW carriers who realised they would be in a lot of pain if they lost them and now working forward I am sure working closer together they will all see the benefits.
I agree. Both BA and QF need to work closer with CX. The last thing OneWorld needs is for CX to bolt to say Star - especially given their close relationship with AC.
qf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 2604 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4202 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 20): The last thing OneWorld needs is for CX to bolt to say Star - especially given their close relationship with AC.
That's a ridiculous idea... QF work just as closely with AF - are they now about to bolt to Skyteam? QF works very closely with SA - sign that they're about to jump ship to Star? CX knows that being in Star would be just as bad if not worse - they'd have major SQ and TG issues... OW is the only alliance lacking in China, and CX will take advantage of that.
CXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2216 posts, RR: 4 Reply 22, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4201 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW CHAT OPERATOR
Quoting gasman (Reply 14): however as a long haul aircraft, from a pax point of view, it's a significant downgrade from a 744 or A380. Feels far less spacious inside, has less reduntant "walk around" room, is only single deck, and 10 abreast - which is becoming commonplace in Y - is awful.
As mentioned, BA's 777s are not 10-abreast, but 9-abreast, which in my view, is more spacious than a 10-abreast 744.
UAL777UK From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 3355 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4074 times:
Quoting qf002 (Reply 21): That's a ridiculous idea... QF work just as closely with AF - are they now about to bolt to Skyteam? QF works very closely with SA - sign that they're about to jump ship to Star? CX knows that being in Star would be just as bad if not worse - they'd have major SQ and TG issues... OW is the only alliance lacking in China, and CX will take advantage of that.
With respect, you missed the former point of what I and Jacobin777 were putting across. CX should be working closer with its current OW members than what they are. If they (and others) want to have code shares, whatever with other carriers so be it but for too long a lot of carriers in OW have been "going there own way". They should get tighter and work together.
Its hardly surprising QF have those code shares in place you mention, they are retreating the QF brand are they not and just sticking to core routes.
cslusarc From Canada, joined May 2005, 813 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (1 year 9 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 3985 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 20): The last thing OneWorld needs is for CX to bolt to say Star - especially given their close relationship with AC.
Can you elaborate on the relationship between AC and CX? They don't code-share, or have any reciprocal frequent flier relationship anymore. They might interline pax and cargo more frequently than between CX and WS.
--cslusarc from YWG
25 Jacobin777: Air China has an investment in Cathay (IIRC the converse is true as well). That is a bit different than say working closely together. Thanks! Apologi
26 qf002: Fair point to make -- I was merely pointing out that suggesting that CX was going to jump ship is a ridiculous notion. The thing with CX is that they
27 SCL767: Cathay Pacific and LAN have a very good relationship, along with a bilateral code-share agreement on various routes. For example, CX places its code
28 VV701: I get the feeling - but I may be wrong - that because BA and CX do not put their codes on each others flights between LHR and HKG there is a view tha
29 flythere: On the other hand BA places it's code on some Asia routes on CX metal, for instance, Jarkarta, Penang, HoChiMinh, Seoul, Surabaya etc. We cannot say
30 david_itl: Yet when CX was operating into MAN, they were more interested in getting codesharing in place on the LHR shuttle rather then develop the MAN service
31 lhr380: So LH and the Gulf carriers are taking customers to their hubs, just like BA are, and with the codeshareing CX get fantastic feed from the European (
Sponsor Message: 
From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 8803 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined May 2006, 1455 posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2005, 813 posts, 
From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 3981 posts, 
From Switzerland, joined Jun 2010, 216 posts, 
From New Zealand, joined Mar 2004, 749 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
