LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23561 posts, RR: 50 Reply 5, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 19129 times:
CZ barely maintained 60% LF with their 777 to LAX for the last decade.
Yes its true the A380s are now fuller, however its on the back of strong push of cheap fares.
For instance CZ is selling business class tickets to parts of Asia ~$2000 round trip which normally cost $4000-5000+
Ultimately I doubt CZ is even breaking even with a full plane at LAX due to the low fares which is making CZ the consolidators favorite airline of the month currently.
As CZ has said themselves they don't have the right routes for the A380, and until the CAAC allows them to add markets they requested (eg PEK-CDG), they must throw the A380 on what they have and hope for the best.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
bogoss From China, joined May 2012, 22 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 18260 times:
I remember this was once discussed in a Chinese forum so I did some digging... only 3 days from 30 November to 2 December and of course it didn't speak for the whole season. However, plus the first reply that justinlee has given, it's better than nothing or you know, how the 777 was doing...
CZ 327 CAN-LAX and CZ 328 LAX-CAN from 30 November to 2 December
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23561 posts, RR: 50 Reply 13, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 17421 times:
Quoting g500 (Reply 10): Why do you think they ordered the A380? To fly it where?
I guess you don't know that China Southern did not wake up one day and order the A380.
The Chinese government (CASGC) did.
Government then opted to allocate the A380 to China Southern, when reportedly Air China did not want to model.
This is the manner large procurements are handled in China.
China Southern provided the Chinese government a list of routes they wished for to utilize the A380 on - namely PEK-CDG.
This authority has yet to be granted (probably blocked by CA). Matter of fact the Chinese did not even allow CZ to operate the model on longhaul routes which forced them to keep the mode on 3 loss making (RMB100 million) shorthaul routes for 1-year. http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...ation-still-faces-challenges-83737
The CEO of CZ had an interview a few months ago and explained this. The carrier at the moment does not have markets where the A380 was suitable per his own words.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
LAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 23561 posts, RR: 50 Reply 16, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 16537 times:
Quoting United885 (Reply 14): How often does CZ serve LAX with their A380?
Yes daily, similar to their previous 777 schedule.
Quoting g500 (Reply 15): Nope I did not know the Government ordered their A380s
I have no ego whatsoever, I immediately admit when I'm wrong or I in this case when I don't know something
No worries. Hopefully A.net is a place where people can come and learn in addition to having fun.
At the end, many people have doubts about CZ's A380 use as it hardly was based on commercial desires, but much more along the line of politics.
As another example, even when airlines in China order smaller things like 737s, the government places the order, and behind the scenes divides out the aircraft to multiple airlines. Not exactly the most transparent manner to acquire aircraft.
Same thing with routes, the government has divided the country up into spheres of influence by airlines, and limits their ability to openly compete against each other. Suppose its like the US pre-deregulation.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
On the positive side of things, CZ is a SkyTeam member - it can tap into DL's FFer base and network connectivity at LAX. CZ offers the only nonstop flight between LAX and CAN, which is in fact currently the only nonstop link between China's third largest city and the U.S. CAN serves as the gateway to the Pearl River Delta, already a major global manufacturing center with a massive population and booming local economy. Also keep in mind that the airline's costs are much lower than those of competing American and Northeast Asian carriers, so lower yields may not necessarily mean unprofitability.
However, there are many negative things to consider. While most Asian airlines are revered for their excellent service, mainland Chinese carriers have a notorious reputation for poor service. The name "China Southern" is quite unknown in the U.S., as is "Guangzhou", which is not a hip international destination like Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong. CAN is an overwhelmingly domestic hub, but if one is connecting to another Chinese market it will probably be much quicker to transit farther north (PEK, ICN, etc.). Also, the potential for U.S.-China travel is rather limited as Americans can't get visas on arrival (I believe this just changed, but only for those transiting through PEK) and it is very difficult for Chinese to get American visas. Overall, it seems the only viable Chinese markets nonstop from the U.S. are PEK and PVG, and even those are adequately served as is evident by the lack of American and Chinese carrier interest in starting new routes. There was a lot of hype over the scarce U.S.-China authorities (on the U.S. side) a few years ago, but now there are plenty of unused authorities available. In particular, the Chinese government has given preferential access to secondary markets (anything other than PEK/PVG) for U.S. carriers, but other than an unsuccessful NRT-CAN service by NW in the mid-2000s and a UA SFO-CAN proposal that never came to fruition, nobody is interested in them. Finally, there is a certain prestige factor with the A380. However, LAX has so many A380 options that the novelty of the type has probably already worn off. For those that do want to fly the A380, the choice is something like this: the pollution of a gritty Chinese manufacturing metropolis, or the beautiful beaches of Sydney? .
Bottom line: CZ is probably not doing well on this route today, but it could have great long term potential. Even if they are losing money it, they are probably losing *less* doing this than a bunch of domestic hops, or sending the A380 anywhere else... They don't have many options to use the A380 in their current network, this is the best option out of many bad options. I think they are banking on eventually being able to use it out of PEK and/or PVG...
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
jfidler From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 326 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (11 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 14125 times:
Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 20): CAN is an overwhelmingly domestic hub, but if one is connecting to another Chinese market it will probably be much quicker to transit farther north (PEK, ICN, etc.).
I think this may have a lot to do with it. I was in CAN recently, and there were no great options for getting back to the US at a reasonable price (in C). I ended up flying back to PEK and heading to the US from there.
I took a CZ A380 on PEK-CAN about a month ago, and I had mistakenly assumed they used such a big plane on a domestic route due to high demand. It's interesting to read in this thread that their choice of such equipment on the route may have been due to restrictions from the Chinese government instead of market forces.
scottpilgrim From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2013, 3 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 13009 times:
Quoting peh (Reply 17): Nothing else in China has to make money. Why should its airline routes be any different?
I would also tend to think that CZ is not a wholly profit-oriented establishment like CX or virtually every airline in private hands. It follows that CAN-LAX route may exist not solely for the sake of money making but for such motives as prestige of having a direct flight to the USA, creating jobs for university graduates, etc that CZ/the Chinese government attaches greater importance to. I don't think the poor yields on this route particularly upsets them, so long as those motives are achieved.
BestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6785 posts, RR: 57 Reply 22, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12225 times:
Quoting phxa340 (Reply 26): How come when a Chinese airline utilizes a European built aircraft on a route that makes no sense and we discuss it we all become Anti-China and Anti-A380. Reality check - the A380 isn't going to work for everyone so when it fails on a particular route, own it. Don't bash us for it and don't accuse of being nationalistic. Now back to the topic at hand ...
Americans not nationalistic - since when?
Sorry, but this thread is full of the usual Crap that comes with the A380 and China on airliners.net. You missed the entire Pre A380 launch hysteria. Chinese aviation threads here are full of badly informed rumours.
Bear in mind that if you read my posts on Hainan Air, they don't need the A380 - whilst CZ - which is Asia's largest airline - do. I've also said on many occasions that China international aviation isn't paved with gold.
China doesn't do things for the short term either. The A380 is a long term play for CZ - not a short term folly. CZ is also a very very profitable airline - so lets give them some benefit of the doubt.
Quoting LAXintl (Reply 13): China Southern provided the Chinese government a list of routes they wished for to utilize the A380 on - namely PEK-CDG.
You are aware that China has a one carrier, one route rule. CDG PEK is already operated by CA. CZ is trying to get around this rule by proposing a quasi codeshare.
SA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3152 posts, RR: 26 Reply 23, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12188 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD MODERATOR
Whilst everyone has the right to an opinion, we ask that this thread not be turned into yet another meaningless Airbus vs. Boeing thread with some users hurling unfounded insults around. Please stay on topic or this thread will be locked for further discussions.
Thanks for your co-operation.
When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud
BestWestern From Hong Kong, joined Sep 2000, 6785 posts, RR: 57 Reply 24, posted (11 months 2 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 12037 times:
Quoting surfandsnow (Reply 18): Bottom line: CZ is probably not doing well on this route today, but it could have great long term potential. Even if they are losing money it, they are probably losing *less* doing this than a bunch of domestic hops, or sending the A380 anywhere else... They don't have many options to use the A380 in their current network, this is the best option out of many bad options. I think they are banking on eventually being able to use it out of PEK and/or PVG...
From CAN, the A380 will eventually serve CDG, AMS and SYD alongside LAX. The config for domestic operations isn't right - too J class heavy, but to compete against the CASM of the high speed train, a higher density A380 may be the proper future on high long density long legged routes - today being flown by A346s 77Ws and 333's (Beijing to Shanghai, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Chengdu, Urumqi)
From about 2017 (ish) - CZ will move to their own (SkyTeam) purpose built airport in Beijing, which will remove the slot constraints and route constraints. Then the A380 order will look inspired, as will the CA 748 order as it will free up both carriers, alongside Hainan Air who will move to terminal 2.
The world is really getting smaller these days
25 United885: I remember that there were rumors shortly after their order, that CZ will base their A380 at PVG.[Edited 2013-01-06 01:27:02]
26 BestWestern: China Southern is a very profitable airline. It's subsidiary, Xiamen Airlines has the longest track record of Airline profitability in the world acco
27 MaverickM11: You say that like there's some brilliant master fleet plan when the reality is the aircraft orders are made by the government and divided up among th
28 bogoss: See reply #9, that's what I can get from my position, 3-day LF from 2 months ago, and reply #1 by justinlee for the past 3 days. Until someone can ma
29 LAXintl: Well here are the A380 loads so far. Oct - 68.1% (only half month was A380) Nov - 57.5% LAX-CAN loads were significantly heavier then CAN-LAX during t
30 winglets747: Which stats are those? DOT/BTS stats usually take months to come out.
31 bogoss: Voilà, that's what the OP was wondering at the first place... numbers and figures... although do you think you're able to tell us where it comes fro
32 LAXintl: Numbers are from our local monthly airport statistics.
33 justinlee: I check DOT statistics. Even before the introduction of A380, the LF of CAN-LAX route in 2012 is not so bad. I don't know what your source of data is
34 LAXintl: The monthly statistics supplied by air carriers here at LAX. Avail online at: http://www.lawa.org/welcome_lax.aspx?id=798 Average per flight passenger
35 justinlee: I got the total departure number of 2011 is 75,142 and arrival number is 75,072. Considering there are 365 days in 2011, the average daily departure
36 brilondon: The government orders all their aircraft and then they go to the airlines.
37 justinlee: It's not the government who makes the orders but the AVIC Group. Of course you can say AVIC is a state owned company. Besides, the new trend is that
38 laca773: Is CZ using LAX to showcase the A380? It seems to me the best a/c for this market would be the 787.
39 justinlee: Actually when they brought the 380, they intended to put it in PEK and use it at PEK-AMS and PEK-CDG route. In fact, when the 380s were delivered, al
40 BestWestern: PEK CDG was never possible because CDG was already operated by Air China. AMS-PEK was recently decoupled from CAN, so it was too early to put an A380