I doubt it - CX serves SYD, BNE, CNS, MEL, ADL and PER.. Whereas QR only serves PER and MEL right at this point in time. CX has a far wider reach. The fact that BA can still get customers to fly on their HKG-LHR sectors (they have no services to KUL) might be part of it.
A little shame there's no reciprocal codeshare on BA's SYD-SIN route
crAAzy From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 817 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 14576 times:
This is great news and actually a better overall move for OW in general as it provides significantly more options and connections traveling between Europe and Australia than what QF/BA had out of SIN as long as the flights are timed correctly. Hopefully given the number of flights BA/CX have between LHR-HKG they can optimize transfers for their flyers - dare I say even codeshare on the route.
Additionally, I'm hoping this partnership will push CX to return at least some F class into the Australian market.
Finally, I'm wondering if this doesn't mean we're closer to seeing the end of BA SIN-SYD?
RyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 6958 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 21 hours ago) and read 14222 times:
Quoting 9MMAR (Thread starter): BA flight numbers appear on CX flights to BNE, CNS, MEL, SYD and PER.
PER is interesting, as going from PER to LHR via HKG involves quite a detour. That said, the new QF times on PER-SIN are less than useless for BA. BA11 connects to QF78 in 3:05, which is fine for LHR-SIN-PER, but going the other way the layover in SIN between QF77 and BA12 is 7.5 hours
The CX times via HKG are just are worse, though. The flights don't connect daily given CX's split times on HKG-PER. On the days that they do connect it is 5.5 hrs for LHR-HKG-PER and 8 hrs for PER-HKG-LHR
As for the CX connections to other destinations, they are about 2 hrs each way for LHR-HKG-SYD and LHR-HKG-MEL, but about 5 hours each way for LHR-HKG-BNE and LHR-HKG-CNS. These will be OK, even for BNE. While 5 hours isn't ideal I would guess that most of the traffic that BA carry to BNE is mostly leisure/VFR anyway so schedule is less important.
QFVHOQA From Australia, joined Mar 2012, 841 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 20 hours ago) and read 14212 times:
This is a good move for BA, as the QF SIN schedules will no longer be well-timed for connections to LHR. I suppose they didn't go with MH because CX serves all the major cities at least daily. I don't think it spells the end for BA metal SIN-SYD, but it opens the door for the possibility.
But I wonder if it is counter-intuitive for BA to pass on pax to CX. Pax may find that CX is better and just fly them all the way LHR-HKG-Australia.
CXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3445 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 19 hours ago) and read 13847 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 7): The CX times via HKG are just are worse, though. The flights don't connect daily given CX's split times on HKG-PER. On the days that they do connect it is 5.5 hrs for LHR-HKG-PER and 8 hrs for PER-HKG-LHR
CX is making PER double daily, so the connection will work each day. However, I agree, the times are less than ideal. Perhaps CX will tweak them, although I don't really see why they would, as the current times do work for CX to CX connections to LHR.
airpearl From Malaysia, joined May 2001, 977 posts, RR: 24
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 13551 times:
Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 7): PER is interesting, as going from PER to LHR via HKG involves quite a detour.
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 2): Whereas QR only serves PER and MEL right at this point in time
PER could be an ideal candidate for a BA/QR codeshare then. With BA's own limited service to Australia, I wouldn't be surprised if it decides to codeshare on some of QR's and MH's services as well. Nothing in the new BA/CX arrangement suggests that it will be an exclusive relationship.
SCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 17 hours ago) and read 13551 times:
Quoting NZ107 (Reply 2): A little shame there's no reciprocal codeshare on BA's SYD-SIN route
Why should BA operate LHR-SIN-SYD when BA could operate LHR-HKG-XXX...
Overall I believe that this new code-share agreement is a positive step towards closer cooperation between BA and CX; especially since QF ditched BA for EK. It will also benefit business passengers and oneworld frequent flyers.
Quoting crAAzy (Reply 5): Hopefully given the number of flights BA/CX have between LHR-HKG they can optimize transfers for their flyers - dare I say even codeshare on the route.
Now that would be a very interesting development. BA operates LHR-HKG 2x daily and CX will increase frequency on the HKG-LHR route to 5x daily.
Lufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3290 posts, RR: 9
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 16 hours ago) and read 12992 times:
Quoting SCL767 (Reply 14): Are you suggesting that BA and CX would not be permitted to code-share on their respective services between LHR and HKG?
I'd say that is definitely his suggestion. 2 carriers, namely QF and Air NZ have pulled off this route, leaving Cathay King (4 times daily or something crazy like that) and BA and a lone Virgin Atlantic flight that continues onto sydney (so a percentage of that flight, maybe has high has half the aircraft, maybe more, will not be competing on LHR-HKG. It was different in the days of NZ and QF on it, but now, not a chance in hell of that one getting up. Not unless Virgin drastically ramped up competition, and that will be hard without the hub feed.
SCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8991 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 11565 times:
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 15): I'd say that is definitely his suggestion. 2 carriers, namely QF and Air NZ have pulled off this route, leaving Cathay King (4 times daily or something crazy like that) and BA and a lone Virgin Atlantic flight that continues onto sydney (so a percentage of that flight, maybe has high has half the aircraft, maybe more, will not be competing on LHR-HKG. It was different in the days of NZ and QF on it, but now, not a chance in hell of that one getting up.
It is unfortunate that neither QF or NZ could not make a profit on the route and decided to eventually drop the route. The fact of the matter is that they had their fair chance, but couldn't operate the route profitably like BA and CX. However, IMO it is unfair to block a hypothetical code-share agreement between two carriers that belong to the same alliance on the route. Remember a code-share agreement is just that; it does not necessarily mean it is a JBA like QF had with BA. For example, look at the code-share between QF and LA between SYD and SCL. VS continues to operate LHR-HKG-SYD, perhaps BA may want to operate LHR-HKG-SYD and CX may want to code-share with BA on such a route. Only time will tell. Regardless, it is clear that BA and CX see value in strengthening cooperation with each other in order to counter the QF/EK alliance.
migair54 From Spain, joined Jun 2007, 2874 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (3 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 11545 times:
I think this is the logic move for BA... as some people had said before MH has not enough presence and name in the UK or Australia like CX or BA, so right now is more logic to codeshare with CX.
In a few years i´m sure we will see BA doing something like EK-QF with QR, because it will be much bigger partner, and not only for Australia, but for India, Middle East, Pakistan, Iran,.... so it will be a big blast for BA, given that they can´t serve many of that destinations even if they want due to the slot constraint at LHR. So i´m sure we will see a further expansion in Australia for QR and maybe a new flight from BA to operate DOH direct and not via BAH.
vhtje From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2009, 468 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 months 13 hours ago) and read 11136 times:
Quoting QFVHOQA (Reply 8): Pax may find that CX is better and just fly them all the way LHR-HKG-Australia.
That may well be, but I always find them eye-wateringly expensive. I can usually get a fare around £3,000-£3,500 in J on QF/BA (and slightly less on AY) but I can never get a fare quote of less than £4,500 on CX. Terrific as they are - and I do want to try to the new J class one day, I didn't like the Coffin Experience one iota - that £1,500 difference (x2!) buys an awful lot of fine dinning experiences in SYD.
Perhaps with these new BA codeshares some bargains might be had, particularly if booked through BA? We've already booked for Christmas 2013 on AY though, so perhaps next time.
MAS777 From United Kingdom, joined Jul 1999, 2939 posts, RR: 6
Reply 21, posted (3 years 3 months 10 hours ago) and read 9518 times:
There will also be a codeshare arrangement currently being negotiated with Malaysia Airlines by British Airways.
Whether Australia/NZ is included in this code-share with MH remains to be seen but i expect both parties would be keen to do this as it provides better choices and connections for passengers of both carriers.
BA and MH - I believe - are in the final stages of launching a codeshare agreement that will include Brunei, Kota Kinabalu, Kuching, Miri, Penang and Langkawi as some of the initial destinations. I expect Jakarta, Denpasar, Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh, Phnom Penh, Phuket and other Southeast Asian cities are being worked on next.
VV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 8666 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 months 9 hours ago) and read 9284 times:
Quoting shilenb (Reply 1): I thought CX weren't so keen on code-sharing with other Oneworld partners
This is an oft repeated myth. CX code-share to 76 different destinations around the world excluding those served by subsidiary Dragonair and the ten destinations where CX code share on the French high speed railway system. Most but not all of their code share flights are operated by their oneworld partners. So, for example, they have code-share flights with AA to 26 destinations in the USA.
You will find a full CX destination list here with the code-share destinations marked with an asterisk:
Indeed, the main problem seems to be with QF. Too close (geographically) for comfort perhaps? It seems the two could have created quite the Asia/Pacific powerhouse if they could have put egos aside for the greater good of OW. But alas...
Next up: STL-LAX-RNO-LAS-ICT-STL
: The only thing that QF would really bring to such a deal is their frequent flyer base, which CX already has virtually unrestricted access to through
: I would fly FR to Australia, over CX if I had to. To be honest I have never been so insulted in my life as I was by the way I was treated by their ca