Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
CX To Lauch 5th Daily LHR  
User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4516 posts, RR: 72
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 12296 times:

On June 27, CX will be launching a fifth daily HKG LHR service:

CX239 HKG LHR 1025 1615
CX238 LHR HKG 2235 1715

This flight will operate with a 3-class B77W (without First Class service).

Where does the LHR slot to operate this service come from? Is it NZ's soon to be abandoned HKG LHR HKG slot or did CX find a different source. As fas as I know, no replacement for the NZ slot has so far been announced.

54 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 12009 times:

Yes. it is the NZ slot

User currently offlineDolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 11935 times:

I understand the need for VLAs now...

User currently offlinena From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 10817 posts, RR: 9
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11849 times:

High time to get 748s or A380 for CX. Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11740 times:

Why a waste? The number of HKG-LHR flights has actually reduced (used to be 11, plus one to LGW, it is now 9 I think)

User currently offlineDolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11704 times:

Quoting Lutfi (Reply 4):
Why a waste? The number of HKG-LHR flights has actually reduced (used to be 11, plus one to LGW, it is now 9 I think)

LHR slots are very expensive, as iare the extra cists from fuel, pilots, etc.


User currently offlineDolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11688 times:

Wait...without F service? If a HKG-LHR flight (because CX has F on other LHR flights, but still) cannot sustain F, I wonder if any route in the world can.

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11625 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 3):
High time to get 748s or A380 for CX. Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

Looking at the updated schedule, while this new flight is very close to an existing flight, the others are spread out a bit more through the day:

HKG -LHR

CX255 dep 0035 local arrive 0620 local B744
CX257 dep 1005 local arrive 1600 local B77W
CX239 dep 1025 local arrive 1615 local B77W - New Flight
CX253 dep 1400 local arrive 2030 local B77W
CX251 dep 2355 local arrive 0540 local (next day) B77W

LHR- HKG

CX252 dep 1230 local arrive 0705 local (next day) B744
CX250 dep 1820 local arrive 1305 local (next day) B77W
CX256 dep 2015 local arrive 1505 local (next day) B77W
CX254 dep 2220 local arrive 1705 local (next day) B77W
CX238 dep 2235 local arrive 1715 local (next day) B77W - New flight


Does CX expect to pick up most of the ex-NZ passengers? If NZ was using a 747-400, the total seats on the route are relatively close (379 for NZ vs. 340 for CX).


Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 6):
Wait...without F service?

I am guessing the other flight departing in the same block has First Class?

[Edited 2013-02-06 17:22:25]

User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11619 times:

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 6):

They know which flights F travellers go on.. Generally they wouldn't take day flights when you can fly overnight. It also increases Y capacity quite substantially. What's missed in the OP is the fact that the 4-class 77W operates on a Wednesday; more likely due to lack of 3-class 77Ws than anything I'd imagine.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11592 times:

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 5):

True, and as you can see, the total number of flights has dropped. (QF/BA/VS have all reduced flights) Actually, it is now 8 flights a day (down from 11) and this extra CX flight will mean capacity stays the same. Only difference is that CX now has 63% of the flights, whereas before they had 36% (4/11, now 5/8)


User currently offlineDolphinAir747 From United States of America, joined Jun 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 11591 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 8):
They know which flights F travellers go on.. Generally they wouldn't take day flights when you can fly overnight. It also increases Y capacity quite substantially. What's missed in the OP is the fact that the 4-class 77W operates on a Wednesday; more likely due to lack of 3-class 77Ws than anything I'd imagine.

Well, that's an extra reason to eliminate the extra day flights and consolidate them into fewer flights...


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11512 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Does CX expect to pick up most of the ex-NZ passengers? If NZ was using a 747-400, the total seats on the route are relatively close (379 for NZ vs. 340 for CX).

NZ have operated the 772 on this route for a while - it was only a 744 right at the beginning and was changed not long after. Either way, NZ passengers can't codeshare on the LHR services yet (for some reason or another).. The only way to get to LHR on NZ remains via LAX. In other words, this easily covers the capacity of passengers heading to LHR; though there would be many NZ passengers terminating in HKG.

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 10):
Well, that's an extra reason to eliminate the extra day flights and consolidate them into fewer flights...

What are you on about?



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlineairdfw From United States of America, joined Aug 2012, 201 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 11385 times:

Are these frequencies are the biggest in terms from Hub to hub connection (long haul)? Does anybody else like UA-LH has this kind of frequencies?

User currently offlineChazPilot From United States of America, joined Feb 2011, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11199 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
Does CX expect to pick up most of the ex-NZ passengers? If NZ was using a 747-400, the total seats on the route are relatively close (379 for NZ vs. 340 for CX).

I think CX is more interested in the increasing # of Mainland visitors to the UK, which is taking active steps to be more China-tourist friendly and is even in the process of revamping the visa application process to be more streamlined with that of continental Europe (France currently still scores 5x number of high spending Chinese tourists than UK!) And given the choice, most Chinese intl. travelers much prefer to fly CX - even with the added connection - than fly direct on, say, MU or CA.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11153 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 11):
NZ have operated the 772 on this route for a while - it was only a 744 right at the beginning and was changed not long after.

Thank you. Are the 1025 and 2235 slots similar to what NZ had? Or was CX allowed to adjust them?



Quoting ChazPilot (Reply 13):
I think CX is more interested in the increasing # of Mainland visitors to the UK...

And thank you, as well.

I'm guessing they have seen strong demand at those two times (~1000 ex-HKG and ~2200 ex-LHR)? If so, did CX consider moving CX257 and CX238 to a 747-400 for the additional Economy seating? Or is demand strongest in Business and Premium Economy (which the four-class 777-300ER offers more of in comparison to the four-class 747-400)?


User currently onlineHB-IWC From Indonesia, joined Sep 2000, 4516 posts, RR: 72
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11123 times:

I find it interesting that CX and for instance not one of the Middle Eastern carriers got its hands on the NZ slot. LHR slots are increasingly hard to come by and the last major transaction before this NZ to CX swap was the SA CPT slot which went to SQ.

Coming up are the QF LHR BKK and LHR HKG slots, which have been temporarily leased out to BA, but which are expected to go to EK once they are returned from lease. Apart from those, there are no immediate signs of any LHR slots being vacated, although if the situation at GF continues to go downhill that 2 pairs of LHR slots, including one prime morning arrival may become available.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11125 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
the others are spread out a bit more through the day:

Not really:
HKG-LHR
CX251/255 are 40 min apart
CX257/230 are 20 min apart

LHR-HKG
All flights, except CX252 are within a 4:15 window and three of them are within a 2:20 window.

Surely CX251/255 could be combined IF an A388 was big enough. (I now think I understand why CX may want the A389!) and CX257/239 certainly could. Eastbound CX254/238 seem obvious, but same condition as CX251/255, surely CX 250/256 could be combined at about 1900.(Slot constraints aside)
BTW I assume NZ has leased the LHR slots to CX, anybody know for how long?

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineLutfi From China, joined Sep 2000, 780 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 11071 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 15):
I find it interesting that CX and for instance not one of the Middle Eastern carriers got its hands on the NZ slot. LHR slots are increasingly hard to come by and the last major transaction before this NZ to CX swap was the SA CPT slot which went to SQ.

CX & NZ did a codesharing deal, and I guess CX buying/ leasing the slots from NZ was part of that deal (so there is now CX/NZ codesharing on the HKG-AKL flights, and will be on HKG-LHR)

I think CX has bought the slots, not leasing, but we won't know until the annual reports come out


User currently offlineNZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6457 posts, RR: 38
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11043 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
Thank you. Are the 1025 and 2235 slots similar to what NZ had? Or was CX allowed to adjust them?

Seems like the slots are within half an hour of NZ's current timings - adjusted for daylight saving of course. Currently, NZ35 lands at 1445 (30 min off the daylight saving arrival of 1615) and departs as NZ38 at 2105 (30 min off the daylight saving departure of 2235).

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 15):
I find it interesting that CX and for instance not one of the Middle Eastern carriers got its hands on the NZ slot.

Why? It wouldn't make sense for NZ to sell it - I'm sure they could operate another route to LHR sometime in the future; possibly from another point in North America. So it is highly likely it was leased to CX. NZ isn't that close with any Middle Eastern carriers either.



It's all about the destination AND the journey.
User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 11011 times:

Quoting HB-IWC (Reply 15):
Coming up are the QF LHR BKK and LHR HKG slots, which have been temporarily leased out to BA, but which are expected to go to EK once they are returned from lease

That's interesting! Is this just speculation or is there a more concrete basis for it?
Whatever, I can't see QF selling the LHR slots, they very well may lease them to EK once they are returned from BA but I just cannot see them being transferred permanently to anybody. I fully expect QF to return to four daily LHR flights, although not for a while, maybe not even until the 2020-2025 or even 2025-30 time frame.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineCXA330300 From South Africa, joined May 2004, 1569 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10994 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
High time to get 748s or A380 for CX. Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

On one of the world's most lucrative and trafficked long-haul routes? Hardly a waste.



The sky is the limit as long as you can stay there
User currently offlinePHLwok From United States of America, joined May 2007, 527 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 10963 times:

Quoting airdfw (Reply 12):
Are these frequencies are the biggest in terms from Hub to hub connection (long haul)? Does anybody else like UA-LH has this kind of frequencies?

I would think JFK-LHR is probably the winner in this regard. On Fri Mar 1, for example, I see 4 flights on VS, 3 on DL, 5 on AA and 7 on BA for a total of 19 versus 8 on HKG-LHR on BA/CX/NZ/VS.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 10820 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
High time to get 748s or A380 for CX. Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

What a good schedule you mean. However much you might wish, they don't need the B747-8, it's not that much bigger than the B77W, indeed the CX257 / 256 is often an A343. Seems that all the worlds B77Ws end up in LHR one day, I hadn't even realises there were two configs til now! Good news indeed.

[Edited 2013-02-06 21:10:35]

User currently offlinemigair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 1922 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9709 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
CX257 dep 1005 local arrive 1600 local B77W
CX239 dep 1025 local arrive 1615 local B77W - New Flight
Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
CX254 dep 2220 local arrive 1705 local (next day) B77W
CX238 dep 2235 local arrive 1715 local (next day) B77W - New flight

I´m not sure if CX will ever order the A380 but this two flights are perfectly suitable to be replace by one A380 only.

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 22):
I hadn't even realises there were two configs til now! Good news indeed.

Actually according to seatguru the B777-300 has 5 different versions.


User currently offlineLHRFlyer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2010, 823 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9626 times:

I think CX operated five daily LHR-HKG flights for a period of time before before the financial crisis, but unless I'm mistaken the fifth flight departed LHR much earlier in the day (at around 4-5pm).

If QF leases two slot pairs to EK, this will incense BA.


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 25, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 10079 times:

Quoting migair54 (Reply 23):


Actually according to seatguru the B777-300 has 5 different versions.

Actually we have 3 different configs for our 77Ws, one with 3 class including first. One 3 class with premium economy but no first class and a 4 class one. Our regional 777-300s have a high density two class fit.


User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 26, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 9914 times:

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 24):

If QF leases two slot pairs to EK, this will incense BA.

I doubt it, its just business. And I not really sure EK would want 2 extra slot pairs seeing EK only has 4 banks (or 3.5 if you prefer) 7 slots seems over kill and as I said above they would only be leased. There's also the consideration that QF may not want EK to have them.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlinenickofatlanta From Australia, joined May 2000, 1488 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 10186 times:

Quoting LHRFlyer (Reply 24):

I think the two LHR slot pairs that QF are not using are leased to BA.


User currently offlinejfk777 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 8513 posts, RR: 6
Reply 28, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9915 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting na (Reply 3):
High time to get 748s or A380 for CX. Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

Cathay is a frequency airline even on their longest routes, why would that change ? Would you be saying "waste" if the flights were 5 A380's ?


User currently offlinejustinlee From China, joined Aug 2012, 332 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 9990 times:

Quoting PHLwok (Reply 21):
I would think JFK-LHR is probably the winner in this regard. On Fri Mar 1, for example, I see 4 flights on VS, 3 on DL, 5 on AA and 7 on BA for a total of 19 versus 8 on HKG-LHR on BA/CX/NZ/VS.

I think DXB-LHR is the No.2. For today, there are 5x388 by EK, 1x744 and 2x777 by BA, 1x333 by VA and 1x772 by BI: a total of 10 but 5x388, which means for available seats, the figure is closer to JFK-LHR. And I can see a big growth potential in the future after the QF-EK coopeartion.


User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 30, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9513 times:

DXB-LHR is definitely getting into to the high frequency & high capacity long-haul market, especially with 7x A380 daily this Summer 2013.

- 01:00 05:30 QF009 A380
- 01:55 06:20 BA106 B744
- 01:55 06:25 BI097 B767
- 02:05 06:35 QF001 A380
- 02:30 07:00 EK007 A380
- 07:45 12:15 EK001 A380
- 09:30 14:05 BA108 B777
- 09:40 14:20 EK029 A380
- 10:55 15:55 VS401 A343
- 14:15 18:40 EK003 A380
- 15:45 20:15 EK005 A380


User currently offlinebabybus From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 31, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 9193 times:

I think CX look like a likely candidate for an A380 or two.

Flying to Heathrow you don't need to have such frequency to connect well. LHR has plenty of departures to Europe and domestically all day.

I thinking global greeness here. Five flights a day is an extravagant waste of fuel.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 32, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8844 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting na (Reply 3):
Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

How so? HKG-LHR is one of the highest demand routes, and by increasing frequency they are both increasing capacity as well as choice for the customer. CX have shown in the past that they prefer to increase frequency where the market demands justify such an increase, instead of upguaging, because that allows them the flexibility to reduce the frequency again if and when demand drops, and it also negates the need for a small subfleet of very large aircraft for one or two routes, which ultimately adds to cost.

Quoting babybus (Reply 31):
I thinking global greeness here. Five flights a day is an extravagant waste of fuel.

The 777-300ER burns less fuel per trip than the A380. 5 x 777-300ER will burn less fuel than 5 x A380. The environment doesn't care about fuel burn per seat, it cares about emissions, which in commercial aviation has a correlation with fuel burn per trip.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineHKG212 From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2008, 158 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8747 times:

Quoting justinlee (Reply 29):
I think DXB-LHR is the No.2. For today, there are 5x388 by EK, 1x744 and 2x777 by BA, 1x333 by VA and 1x772 by BI: a total of 10 but 5x388, which means for available seats, the figure is closer to JFK-LHR. And I can see a big growth potential in the future after the QF-EK coopeartion.

If you add LCY-JFK and LHR-EWR, with additional BA, VS, and UA flights, the number of available seats between NYC-LON is much, much higher than LHR-DXB or any other international city pair, by a large margin.


User currently offlinebthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 522 posts, RR: 0
Reply 34, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 8653 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
HKG -LHR

CX255 dep 0035 local arrive 0620 local B744
CX257 dep 1005 local arrive 1600 local B77W
CX239 dep 1025 local arrive 1615 local B77W - New Flight
CX253 dep 1400 local arrive 2030 local B77W
CX251 dep 2355 local arrive 0540 local (next day) B77W

LHR- HKG

CX252 dep 1230 local arrive 0705 local (next day) B744
CX250 dep 1820 local arrive 1305 local (next day) B77W
CX256 dep 2015 local arrive 1505 local (next day) B77W
CX254 dep 2220 local arrive 1705 local (next day) B77W
CX238 dep 2235 local arrive 1715 local (next day) B77W - New flight

I'm assuming its the timing of the slot that dictates where the new flight is? Otherwise it would make sense to move the 3 original LHR-HKG evening departures forward starting at say 16.00 to catch the after lunch travelers and spread the new flight out a bit? 12.5 hr layover for the 251/250 aircraft seems quite excessive


User currently offlineCX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6642 posts, RR: 55
Reply 35, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8409 times:

Quoting bthebest (Reply 34):
I'm assuming its the timing of the slot that dictates where the new flight is? Otherwise it would make sense to move the 3 original LHR-HKG evening departures forward starting at say 16.00 to catch the after lunch travelers and spread the new flight out a bit? 12.5 hr layover for the 251/250 aircraft seems quite excessive

Your assumption is correct. CX, along with most operators at LHR simply do not have the luxury of picking what slot they want. Even getting a slot is quite a task, let alone picking a perfect one. Sometimes you just have to make do with what you have.

The extended ground time is certainly not wasted. A number of maintenance tasks are always done with the time on ground, especially cabin defects and general maintenance, deep cleaning etc... These tasks must be completed somewhere on the CX network at some point, so the airline makes use of ground time in LHR as well as several other ports around the network to complete simple maintenance tasks and checks.


User currently offlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13551 posts, RR: 100
Reply 36, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8302 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 2):
I understand the need for VLAs now...

   But does CX have enough routes to maintain a sub-fleet of VLAs? IMHO, 17 is the minimum economic number for an airframe.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
HKG -LHR

CX255 dep 0035 local arrive 0620 local B744
CX257 dep 1005 local arrive 1600 local B77W
CX239 dep 1025 local arrive 1615 local B77W - New Flight
CX253 dep 1400 local arrive 2030 local B77W
CX251 dep 2355 local arrive 0540 local (next day) B77W

LHR- HKG

CX252 dep 1230 local arrive 0705 local (next day) B744
CX250 dep 1820 local arrive 1305 local (next day) B77W
CX256 dep 2015 local arrive 1505 local (next day) B77W
CX254 dep 2220 local arrive 1705 local (next day) B77W
CX238 dep 2235 local arrive 1715 local (next day) B77W - New flight

Thank you. Did 238 catch one of the last departure slots at LHR?

I would assume 255/252 are the two most popular flights (due to the 744), but I would have thought it would be 255/256 on timing.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 37, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7859 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 14):
I'm guessing they have seen strong demand at those two times (~1000 ex-HKG and ~2200 ex-LHR)? If so, did CX consider moving CX257 and CX238 to a 747-400 for the additional Economy seating?

CX is desperately trying to get rid of 744 on long haul routes due to the high fuel prices. Even if they can pack a 744, they're still losing $$ on routes such as HKG-YVR, HKG-LHR.

I believe that's one of the reason they reduced HKG-JFK frequency to free up a 77W on another long haul (LHR?)


User currently offlineecbomberman From Hong Kong, joined Mar 2011, 76 posts, RR: 0
Reply 38, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 7411 times:

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 37):
Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 37):
CX is desperately trying to get rid of 744 on long haul routes due to the high fuel prices. Even if they can pack a 744, they're still losing $$ on routes such as HKG-YVR, HKG-LHR.

Any proof of that? I think CX is an airline which give CHOICES to their customers. Plus I believe if they can fill up the front end (a la First and Business Class) they won't lose any money...

It's not just CX that flies HKG-LHR in such a short timeframe 2300-0100... BA and VS does at that timeframe.



VS343/346/744 CX744/L1101/343 MH332/333/733 BD32x/EMB 145 AK320 SQ310/77E/773/744 UA747SP/744 BA744 BI763ER/319 QF763ER
User currently offlineflyinghippo From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 712 posts, RR: 1
Reply 39, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7107 times:

Quoting ecbomberman (Reply 38):
http://www.businesstraveller.asia/as...c-announces-readjusted-routes-to-s

In an internal newsletter to CX employees (Which I cannot find right now), it also stressed that CX is accelerating the retirement of 744s, and that CX is reducing some 77W to NA so they can be used on flights to Europe, replacing 744s on those European routes.


User currently offlinePW100 From Netherlands, joined Jan 2002, 2591 posts, RR: 16
Reply 40, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 7103 times:

Quoting Lutfi (Reply 4):
Why a waste? The number of HKG-LHR flights has actually reduced (used to be 11, plus one to LGW, it is now 9 I think)
Quoting Lutfi (Reply 9):
True, and as you can see, the total number of flights has dropped. (QF/BA/VS have all reduced flights) Actually, it is now 8 flights a day (down from 11) and this extra CX flight will mean capacity stays the same. Only difference is that CX now has 63% of the flights, whereas before they had 36% (4/11, now 5/8)

We might be overlooking an important factor here. True, the number of flights might have reduced, but what about the NET capacity HKG-LHR?

Important factor is off course that many of those11 were merely using HKG as a stop. So many pax on those flights were not flying HKG-LHR or vv. They were travelling SYD-LHR, or AKL-LHR. So the net capacity available to HKG-LHR was (much) less than the equivalent of those 11 flights.

True, many pax on today’s 4 (soon to be 5) CX flights are also not travelling HKG-LHR, but transferring at HKG. But then again, those pax can just as easily use a different hub, like SIN, SEL, KUL, BKK, DXB etc. That choice elasticity was less on the previous QF/BA/VS flights direct SYD-LHR, AKL-LHR etc.

PW100



Immigration officer: "What's the purpose of your visit to the USA?" Spotter: "Shooting airliners with my Canon!"
User currently offlineYULWinterSkies From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 2185 posts, RR: 5
Reply 41, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6044 times:

Quoting na (Reply 3):
High time to get 748s or A380 for CX. Five flights per day to LHR, what a waste.

Indeed. Time has come.

Quoting na (Reply 3):
Why a waste?

Because if you look at the schedule below, they are only flown over 3 time slots one way and four time slots the other way. CX would save much by concentrating those flights into one.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 7):
HKG -LHR

CX255 dep 0035 local arrive 0620 local B744
CX257 dep 1005 local arrive 1600 local B77W
CX239 dep 1025 local arrive 1615 local B77W - New Flight
CX253 dep 1400 local arrive 2030 local B77W
CX251 dep 2355 local arrive 0540 local (next day) B77W

LHR- HKG

CX252 dep 1230 local arrive 0705 local (next day) B744
CX250 dep 1820 local arrive 1305 local (next day) B77W
CX256 dep 2015 local arrive 1505 local (next day) B77W
CX254 dep 2220 local arrive 1705 local (next day) B77W
CX238 dep 2235 local arrive 1715 local (next day) B77W - New flight



When I doubt... go running!
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 42, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5857 times:

Not sure how you get two B77W loads onto an A380. So you sell the slots to the other guy then get slammed in a pincer movement on frequency? How many routes does CX *need* a VLA for given HKG is likely to get two new runways?

User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 43, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 5695 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 42):
Not sure how you get two B77W loads onto an A380.

An 80m A380-900 would offer about the same cabin floor space as two 777-300ERs (though you might not be able to actually fit the same number of seats). However, it would only offer the cargo volume of one 777-300ER.

A 550-seat A380-900 would need 22 of the 44 LD3 positions for passenger bags (using the IATA standard of 1 LD3 per 25 passengers), leaving 20 open for revenue cargo. CX's 777-300ERs dedicate 11 of their 44 LD3 positions to passenger bags using the same formula.

So if CX replaced two 275-seat 777-300ERs with a 550-seat A380-900 they would be giving up 64 LD3 positions worth of cargo volume. CX could send a 777F to make up the difference, however.   


User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 1051 posts, RR: 0
Reply 44, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5489 times:

When is the first CX 77F due ?

User currently offlinegemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5828 posts, RR: 6
Reply 45, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 5118 times:

Quoting nickofatlanta (Reply 27):
I think the two LHR slot pairs that QF are not using are leased to BA.

Yes, but only for two years from when HKG/BKK-LHR ceased. The talk of the slots going to EK is *after* the two years is up.

Gemuser



DC23468910;B72172273373G73873H74374475275376377L77W;A319 320321332333343;BAe146;C402;DHC6;F27;L188;MD80MD85
User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 46, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4541 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
When is the first CX 77F due ?

Didn't they swap them with CA for more B747-8Fs?


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 47, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4527 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 46):
Didn't they swap them with CA for more B747-8Fs?

There have been rumors to that effect, but Boeing still shows 2 747-8F and 8 777F still on order.


User currently offlineworkhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4222 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
A 550-seat A380-900 would need 22 of the 44 LD3 positions for passenger bags (using the IATA standard of 1 LD3 per 25 passengers), leaving 20 open for revenue cargo.

Why not 22 (44-22)?

Quoting Stitch (Reply 43):
CX's 777-300ERs dedicate 11 of their 44 LD3 positions to passenger bags using the same formula.So if CX replaced two 275-seat 777-300ERs with a 550-seat A380-900 they would be giving up 64 LD3 positions worth of cargo volume.

Why not 44 ((44-11)+(44-11)-22)?



[Edited 2013-02-07 23:54:22]

User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2694 posts, RR: 5
Reply 49, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 3835 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting YULWinterSkies (Reply 41):
CX would save much by concentrating those flights into one.

How so? There's no aircraft available at present that can carry the same load as 2 x 777-300ERs. If they had combined two flights into one they might save on landing and departure fees as well as fuel, but they're also making less revenue by having fewer seats and less cargo.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 50, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 3657 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting workhorse (Reply 48):
Why not 22 (44-22)?
Quoting workhorse (Reply 48):
Why not 44 ((44-11)+(44-11)-22)?

Yeah. What you said.  Embarrassment  Smile

Still, if CX is using 77Ws for the cargo volume as well as the passenger volume, then they're going to be giving up a fair bit of volume consolidating two of them onto a single A389.

[Edited 2013-02-08 07:18:36]

User currently offlinewawaman From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2013, 6 posts, RR: 0
Reply 51, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 3533 times:

Quoting NZ107 (Reply 18):
CX & NZ did a codesharing deal, and I guess CX buying/ leasing the slots from NZ was part of that deal (so there is now CX/NZ codesharing on the HKG-AKL flights, and will be on HKG-LHR)

I tried to book with NZ for April to fly LHR->AKL via HKG and could not find any evidence that NZ have a code share on the LHR->HKG leg. I even called NZ to ask and they said No, call VS.

Any idea when the CX code share on the LHR-HKG route might get announced?


User currently offlineworkhorse From France, joined Jul 2005, 219 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2993 times:

Quoting Stitch (Reply 50):
Yeah. What you said. Still, if CX is using 77Ws for the cargo volume as well as the passenger volume, then they're going to be giving up a fair bit of volume consolidating two of them onto a single A389.

No problem   You're right, the 77W's cargo advantage over other airplanes (with the exception of the A350-1000) is huge.

The 388 has 38 LD3 positions with only 17 or 18 available for freight, and the 748i 40 with about 22-23 for cargo.

I guess that if these 5 77W's a day regularly fly with their bellies full, the hope to see some day a 748i or a 388 in CX's colors would be reduced. If not (if, for example, cargo loads stay the same as in the 744 era) a mix of 77W's and 388's could work (use the 77W's to haul most of the cargo and the 388's most of the people).

I also still have hard time to believe that, in terms of image, CX can afford not having a VLA when all their neighbors and competitors do.


User currently offlineskipness1E From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2007, 3322 posts, RR: 1
Reply 53, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2804 times:

Thats the key issue, image. Does Malaysian really need a small fleet of A388s? Are Thai going to fill the flying forehead? (I love that phrase!)
For some like EK, there's a solid business case, for others it's all part of the willy-waving contest in that part of the world. Much like everyone buying the B747-100 then realising they couldn't turn a profit with one.

For Cathay, I suspect they'd want more than a handful but there's not a need for that given how good the B77W is.


User currently offlineStitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 31436 posts, RR: 85
Reply 54, posted (1 year 10 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 2599 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting skipness1E (Reply 53):
Thats the key issue, image. Does Malaysian really need a small fleet of A388s? Are Thai going to fill the flying forehead? (I love that phrase!)

For some like EK, there's a solid business case, for others it's all part of the willy-waving contest in that part of the world.

At the time MH and TG placed their orders (2003 and 2004, respectively), the A380-800 was the only available 747-400 replacement is you operated a three-class configuration and needed/wanted to increase capacity.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Emirates To Start 5th Daily To KHI posted Mon Mar 19 2012 02:38:13 by ojas
Qatar Airways To Start 5th Daily Heathrow posted Wed Dec 7 2011 06:22:02 by santos
BD To Go Double Daily LHR-TLV posted Tue Feb 10 2009 10:23:40 by Bretts1983
CX To Start 3rd Daily JFK / +1 Weekly PER posted Mon Jul 30 2007 04:48:44 by YLWbased
VS Going To Start 2nd Daily LHR-HKG? posted Fri Jul 20 2007 08:08:28 by United Airline
CX To Go Triple Daily On HKG-YVR? posted Sat May 19 2007 06:08:21 by United Airline
CX To Go Triple Daily On HKG-YVR? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 05:17:18 by United Airline
Virgin Atlantic Add 5th Daily LHR-JFK, 2nd LHR-IAD posted Sat Jul 13 2002 06:35:20 by Bobcat
United To Add 3rd Daily IAH Flight To LHR In 2013 posted Wed Oct 3 2012 19:18:50 by GEsubsea
AA To Start 4th Daily DFW-LHR posted Tue Feb 14 2012 09:31:03 by santos
CX To Start 4th Daily LHR Service posted Mon Jun 27 2005 19:41:11 by Jakob77
Emirates To Start 5th Daily To KHI posted Mon Mar 19 2012 02:38:13 by ojas
Qatar Airways To Start 5th Daily Heathrow posted Wed Dec 7 2011 06:22:02 by santos
BD To Go Double Daily LHR-TLV posted Tue Feb 10 2009 10:23:40 by Bretts1983
CX To Start 3rd Daily JFK / +1 Weekly PER posted Mon Jul 30 2007 04:48:44 by YLWbased
VS Going To Start 2nd Daily LHR-HKG? posted Fri Jul 20 2007 08:08:28 by United Airline
CX To Go Triple Daily On HKG-YVR? posted Sat May 19 2007 06:08:21 by United Airline
CX To Go Triple Daily On HKG-YVR? posted Sat Dec 30 2006 05:17:18 by United Airline
Virgin Atlantic Add 5th Daily LHR-JFK, 2nd LHR-IAD posted Sat Jul 13 2002 06:35:20 by Bobcat
United To Add 3rd Daily IAH Flight To LHR In 2013 posted Wed Oct 3 2012 19:18:50 by GEsubsea