United Airline From Hong Kong, joined Jan 2001, 9501 posts, RR: 13 Posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8369 times:
They have the rights for HKG-LHR-JFK and they were desperate in applying for this route. Will they start service anytime soon? Also they mentioned about HKG-SYD-LAX. Will they apply for it? What's up with SQ? Do they still want to fly this route?
CX is a top airline and I am sure they can attract lots of customers.
The premium cabins on LHR-JFK are highly contract-driven with big business. There's probably little left over of the walk-up crowd to fight over. In addition, HKG-JFK via LHR is a very inefficient routing vs. HKG-JFK nonstop, and CX isn't known for frivolous routings.
Just like SIN-SYD-LAX, this isn't a natural routing between the origin and destination in the realm of 5th Freedom rights. There's really no reason for it to exist in either CX or SQ's network, except to siphon off traffic from the established carriers representing the countries on either end of SYD-LAX.
gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 6285 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 8289 times:
Neither CX or SQ have rights SYD/MEL-LAX. In the current climate I doubt they would want them either, Trans Pacific is still a blood bath with 4 competitors.
As an example I found a fare in Sept for $A1529 SYD-SFO-LHR return on UA. That's less than I paid for SYD-SFO return last Sept!!!
Somehow I don't think the yields are there to attract the likes of CX or SQ.
CX Flyboy From Hong Kong, joined Dec 1999, 6811 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 7650 times:
I have not heard any rumours about this recently and with new 77Ws needed to replace existing 744 longhaul flights, there will not be any new longhaul routes launched anytime soon with the exception of perhaps EWR.
BreninTW From Taiwan, joined Jul 2006, 2005 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 7252 times:
Quoting United Airline (Reply 5): CX doesn't operate any transatlantic flight and perhaps LHR-JFK is a good addition to their network?
Why would CX enter this bloodbath with its own aircraft when it can transfer pax to Oneworld partners BA and AA? Especially with BA going A380 LHR - JFK it doesn't make sense for CX to enter the market.
Entering the market will only serve to depress yields even more than they are currently and I doubt CX would be able to get too many of the lucrative corporate contracts that are the bread-and-butter of the route.
NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6716 posts, RR: 34
Reply 9, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6939 times:
Quoting BreninTW (Reply 6): Why would CX enter this bloodbath with its own aircraft when it can transfer pax to Oneworld partners BA and AA? Especially with BA going A380 LHR - JFK it doesn't make sense for CX to enter the market.
Not just that but AA's J hard product in the 77W is nearly identical to CX's long haul J product; on a route which AA has twice daily 77Ws at the moment. AA's Y is also nearly identical to CX's Y too.. Albeit the service may not be as good as on CX and anyone not a OW elite would have to pay more to get the 9-abreast Main Cabin Extra.
For CX to have one daily flight doesn't make sense when everyone else has 4 or 5. Even SQ didn't join the bloodbath for NYC with their trans-Atlantic flight ex-FRA.
Wasn't it a condition of allowing UK airlines to fly HKG-AUS that CX could fly LHR-JFK? So CX may not necessarily have wanted those rights but may as well take the option if its handed to you on a plate.
Flyingsottsman From Australia, joined Oct 2010, 750 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 6165 times:
Hong Kong LHR/JFK, I could see them getting that but HKG SYD LAX no way! That route is very protected by the Fedral Government for QF the SYD/LAX service is QF's bread and butter SQ has tried for years with out suscess so I dont see CX being sucessful either applying for this route even though they and QF are in OW.