jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 1:56 pm

Brief presentation on product update by Cathay Pacific's sales rep in my office for the week of 09APR07....highlights on fleet

*Boeing no longer takes orders for 747s (which I corrected him)

*At this stage, Cathay Pacific's mind is "frequency over capacity" at this point, which they prefer to provide high-frequency service to regional route, one of the airline's main core market as well as the long route.

*The airline is happy with their decision to step away from A380 because "they don't know when they'll ever be delivered".
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
6thfreedom
Posts: 2622
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2004 11:09 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 2:10 pm

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
*At this stage, Cathay Pacific's mind is "frequency over capacity" at this point, which they prefer to provide high-frequency service to regional route, one of the airline's main core market as well as the long route.

Good strategy, especially when chasing the premium pax....

Offer them a good J class product, and 3 frequencies per day rather than 1 monster A380, and 9 times out of 10 you will get them.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacit

Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:17 pm

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
*Boeing no longer takes orders for 747s (which I corrected him)

That dumb remark of him is enough to dismiss al his other 'knowledge', that he's just a sales rep only adds to that.

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
*The airline is happy with their decision to step away from A380 because "they don't know when they'll ever be delivered".

When did the airline ever take that decision?  scratchchin  And the reason he quoted...  rotfl 

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 1):

Offer them a good J class product, and 3 frequencies per day rather than 1 monster A380,

This comparison isn't valid. Cathay Pacific (OK, I know Dragonair does) doesn't fly aircraft with 150 to 185 seats (1/3 the capacity of the A380). If they would replace 3 flights ( smallest aircraft in their fleet are the A330's) with only one A380 they'd be reducing frequency and capacity.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
CrazyHorse
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:16 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 4:36 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
This comparison isn't valid. Cathay Pacific (OK, I know Dragonair does) doesn't fly aircraft with 150 to 185 seats (1/3 the capacity of the A380). If they would replace 3 flights ( smallest aircraft in their fleet are the A330's) with only one A380 they'd be reducing frequency and capacity.

CX flies to Australia with "small" aircrafts (A330-300) and try to boost their frequency on this market and it seems that CX do quite well with this way. Other airlines operates much bigger aicrafts to their australian gateways than CX does.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:08 pm

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 3):
CX flies to Australia with "small" aircrafts (A330-300) and try to boost their frequency on this market and it seems that CX do quite well with this way.

Sure, as long as desirable slots are easy and affordable to get, no problems. But once these are problematic to come by the best solution to grow is upgrading equipment.

Getting back to my previous post. Their smallest capacity is on the 3 class A343 and has 243 seats, their biggest capacity aircraft of the same family seats 333 people on the 2 class A333. My point being, 3 of these do not equal an A380.

CX currently operates 4 daily flights to LHR, offering roughly 1300 seats. Rather then trying to get their hands on slots in a 'soon to be ' even more crowded LHR. Upgrading some (starting with CX251 and CX255), and after a while all of them to the A380 might work well for them. How many more daily frequencies are desired on a 12 hour flight? Meanwhile, while waiting for the A380 to arrive, the A340s can be upgraded to 747s.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:11 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
*Boeing no longer takes orders for 747s (which I corrected him)

That dumb remark of him is enough to dismiss al his other 'knowledge', that he's just a sales rep only adds to that.

...making one incorrect comment doesn't mean he doesn't know anything....if you are incorrect on one comment Manni, should we dismiss everything you say too....? Wink
"Up the Irons!"
 
Carpethead
Posts: 2566
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 8:15 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:32 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 4):
CX currently operates 4 daily flights to LHR, offering roughly 1300 seats. Rather then trying to get their hands on slots in a 'soon to be ' even more crowded LHR. Upgrading some (starting with CX251 and CX255), and after a while all of them to the A380 might work well for them. How many more daily frequencies are desired on a 12 hour flight? Meanwhile, while waiting for the A380 to arrive, the A340s can be upgraded to 747s.

I imagine CX will not buy four or five A380s just for HKG-LHR. If anything, BA could handle the overnights and CX could just operate all the long-hauls with 77W, if need be.

As a sidenote, between 2315 & 0035, there are six 744 flights between QF, BA & CX on the HKG-LHR. That's sick. This doesn't include VS, which probably flies around the same time.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:34 pm

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5):
...making one incorrect comment doesn't mean he doesn't know anything....i

True. But the comment he made is so significant (incorrect) that it does sound that he doesn't know anything at all about the issues brought forward.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
zoom1018
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 2:59 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:38 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 7):
But the comment he made is so significant (incorrect) that it does sound that he doesn't know anything at all about the issues brought forward.

Could he just want to mean 747-400 passenger ?
 
CrazyHorse
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:16 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:45 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 4):
Sure, as long as desirable slots are easy and affordable to get, no problems. But once these are problematic to come by the best solution to grow is upgrading equipment.

CX could send the B77W or their B747-400 to Australia to increase their capacity on this route, if their is an big increase in demand on this routes.
A380 is to big for this route and CX know´s this.

Quoting Manni (Reply 4):
Getting back to my previous post. Their smallest capacity is on the 3 class A343 and has 243 seats, their biggest capacity aircraft of the same family seats 333 people on the 2 class A333. My point being, 3 of these do not equal an A380.

But two A343 will be the same capacity as one A380, and one A380 lost about 150 seats to two A333 on the same route. Business travellers loves frequency and CX knows this and do this on their route network and they do damm right.
The only route in their network which could fit a A380 is LHR, but I don´t think that CX will buy the Superjumbo for only one big destination.
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:48 pm

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6):
I imagine CX will not buy four or five A380s just for HKG-LHR.

Neither do I. There will be more routes found suitable for the A380. CDG and FRA both have 10 weekly flights, 3 operated by A340's. These aircraft stay on the ground for 12 hours. The A380 could reduce the number of flights to 7 a week without reducing capacity and free up the extra aircraft, cabin crew, pilots needed now. Other A380 destinations could be LAX, JFK and YVR. After they've added capacity by upgrading their A340s to 773ER's or 744s perhaps. If the A380 turns out to be able to do what it is supposed to do and passenger growth keeps increasing I can imagine that there'l be a dozen A380s within 10 years from now ordered and delivered to CX.
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
manni
Posts: 4049
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2001 1:48 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 5:59 pm

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 9):
A380 is to big for this route and CX know´s this.

I wasn't talking about this route in particular.

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 9):
But two A343 will be the same capacity as one A380, and one A380 lost about 150 seats to two A333 on the same route. Business travellers loves frequency and CX knows this and do this on their route network and they do damm right.

With the exception of Australia the A330 is only used on intra Asian flights. If CX do order the A380 I'd say they'll use them for their intercontinental services.

BTW, An A343 and an A380 would offer about 150 seats more then 2 A330s. Including a whole lot more business and first class seats, business travellers love those seats...  Wink

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 9):
The only route in their network which could fit a A380 is LHR, but I don´t think that CX will buy the Superjumbo for only one big destination.

Neither do I. However there's a precedent I think. Didn't CX lease initially A346s just for their JFK services?
SUPPORT THE LEBANESE CIVILIANS
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:28 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 7):
True. But the comment he made is so significant (incorrect) that it does sound that he doesn't know anything at all about the issues brought forward.



Quoting Zoom1018 (Reply 8):
Quoting Manni (Reply 7):
But the comment he made is so significant (incorrect) that it does sound that he doesn't know anything at all about the issues brought forward.

Could he just want to mean 747-400 passenger ?

...that might have been a possibility....one never really knows....
"Up the Irons!"
 
CrazyHorse
Posts: 316
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2005 12:16 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:43 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
With the exception of Australia the A330 is only used on intra Asian flights. If CX do order the A380 I'd say they'll use them for their intercontinental services.

The A330 is a great aircraft and do a great job for CX on their routes to OZ.
CX could order the A380 for their intercontinental service, but I think CX will order the B747-8i for this service and will go with Airbus for their replacement aircraft on the intra Asian and Australian flights.
Not every route is big enough for the Superjumbo and maybe CX will earn more money with more frequency.

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
BTW, An A343 and an A380 would offer about 150 seats more then 2 A330s. Including a whole lot more business and first class seats, business travellers love those seats...

But the airline had to fill this seats every day with a good yield. Wink

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
Neither do I. However there's a precedent I think. Didn't CX lease initially A346s just for their JFK services?

Agree, but many Asian airlines have bought a ULH aircraft for New York and the most airlines are not happy with this route. Thai lost good money with ther A340-500 service to New York.
And the A380 is not really a aircraft for such special flights.
 
SkyGazer
Posts: 67
Joined: Sun Feb 04, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:20 pm

Frequency not capacity?

That reads "787, not A380" to me, if there's a potential order on the books  Wink
Types flown: B738, B772ER, B773, B77W, B744, A310, A320, A321, A332, A333, A343, A388
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3096
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:21 pm

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
Brief presentation on product update by Cathay Pacific's sales rep in my office for the week of 09APR07....highlights on fleet

*Boeing no longer takes orders for 747s (which I corrected him)

*At this stage, Cathay Pacific's mind is "frequency over capacity" at this point, which they prefer to provide high-frequency service to regional route, one of the airline's main core market as well as the long route.

*The airline is happy with their decision to step away from A380 because "they don't know when they'll ever be delivered".

Typical sales rep training. Take the company policy of the moment, and try to create a good justification.

With the forthcoming arrival of both the 380 and the 787, I'm sure there's going to be a lot more of this floating around.
 
aircanada014
Posts: 1224
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:24 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 7:23 pm

Same goes for AC, passengers prefer more frequency flights meaning more choices of departure times.
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:31 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 1):
Offer them a good J class product, and 3 frequencies per day rather than 1 monster A380,
This comparison isn't valid. Cathay Pacific (OK, I know Dragonair does) doesn't fly aircraft with 150 to 185 seats (1/3 the capacity of the A380).

The Dragonair A320s don't really count. The A380 is a long haul airplane, and everybody understands that the A380 would of course not replace the A320s on flights to cities in mainland China. The A380 in CX colors would replace the 747s that Cathay currently flies to major destinations in Europe and North America.

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 3):
Other airlines operates much bigger aicrafts to their australian gateways than CX does.

That's not true. IIRC, most CX flights are on 3-class A333s with 251 seats. Most other airlines flying between Asia and Australia use A330s, A340s, 747s and 777s with between 240-380 seats. You'd be hard pressed to find an airline that uses airplanes with more than 380 seats between Asia and Australia. So it's more correct to say that other airlines operate aircraft of similar size or up to 50 percent bigger.

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6):
As a sidenote, between 2315 & 0035, there are six 744 flights between QF, BA & CX on the HKG-LHR. That's sick. This doesn't include VS, which probably flies around the same time.

Which is an evidence suggesting that frequency is not that important on flights of 12 hours or more. The reason why both QF, BA, CX and VS all leave at around the same time is that most businessmen want a full day's work in Hong Kong and a full day's work in London. A flight at midnight is the only possibility of accommodating that majority of businessmen.

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 9):
A380 is to big for this route and CX know´s this.

Everybody knows this. But in another 5-7 years from now, the A380 could be the right size for routes where CX today operates 744s.

Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5):
...making one incorrect comment doesn't mean he doesn't know anything....if you are incorrect on one comment Manni, should we dismiss everything you say too....?

Of course not, but when somebody doesn't know that Boeing is selling 747s, that says something about that person's knowledge about fleet planning.

Quoting Zoom1018 (Reply 8):
Could he just want to mean 747-400 passenger ?

Unlikely. The thread starter said that he "corrected him," and it seems that the guy didn't clarify that he meant the 744-pax. Unless the thread starter is only telling us parts of the truth, he was clearly talking about the 747 as such.

Which makes me wonder: Since a sales guy from CX apparently doesn't know about the 748, does this mean that the 748 is a non-issue at CX headquarters? If the 748 would have been a likely future airplane in the CX fleet, you would think that he would know something about this airplane...?

Quoting Manni (Reply 11):
Neither do I. However there's a precedent I think. Didn't CX lease initially A346s just for their JFK services?

They did, but you have to remember that they already operated a big A343/A333 fleet, so fleet commonality made the integration of a small number of A346s easier. Plus, at the time when CX ordered the A346, there were very few other airplanes which could make that flight with a full load.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
DAYflyer
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 9:35 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:35 pm

Quoting SkyGazer (Reply 14):
Frequency not capacity?

That reads "787, not A380" to me, if there's a potential order on the books

Perhaps it has already been placed, with all the UFO's listed on the Boeing website for the 787.
One Nation Under God
 
a380us
Posts: 1447
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 4:55 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 10:44 pm

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 13):
Agree, but many Asian airlines have bought a ULH aircraft for New York and the most airlines are not happy with this route. Thai lost good money with ther A340-500 service to New York.
And the A380 is not really a aircraft for such special flights.

im not sure if TG necissarily lost money but i think they could have mademore money with a stop also because cargo was very limited and is a big source of income
www.JandACosmetics.com
 
zoom1018
Posts: 201
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 2:59 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:05 pm

Quoting RedChili (Reply 17):
A flight at midnight is the only possibility of accommodating that majority of businessmen.

What I have learned so far is that midnight flights (long-haul) are more comfortable for passengers and are better for aircraft utilising. Businessmen may have to rush so a midnight flight doesn't help them.
 
incitatus
Posts: 2714
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 1:49 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:18 pm

Quoting Manni (Reply 2):
This comparison isn't valid. Cathay Pacific (OK, I know Dragonair does) doesn't fly aircraft with 150 to 185 seats (1/3 the capacity of the A380). If they would replace 3 flights ( smallest aircraft in their fleet are the A330's) with only one A380 they'd be reducing frequency and capacity.

Your reasoning is incorrect so may I suggest words like "dumb" are not used to describe what other people say?

Say Cathay places three flights with smaller aircraft on a route, instead of one A380. It should see significantly more traffic with the three flights. Their service on the route will be more attractive than their competitors', and they will leverage their network around Hong Kong to obtain connecting traffic they otherwise would not.

Take a route like Jakarta to Hong Kong. If they offer a single A380, the Jakarta passengers will have limited or no connections to longhaul services. If they offer three A330 services, they become a much more attractive choice to Jakarta travelers going to almost anywhere outside of SE Asia. Thus much more traffic.
Stop pop up ads
 
coa747
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 3:11 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:32 pm

Cathay will not order the A380 at this time seems cut and dry. It would seem that this is just one more indication of a industry wide move away from jumbo jets. People talk about how LHR could sustatin an A380 by Cathay but fail to consider that if every airline who now operates HGK-LHR switched to an A380 on that route it would dump a whole lot of extra seats on the market and even a premium route like that may not have enough demand to fill all those seats. Even mega markets like LHR have their limits. I just don't see the business case for the A380 for Cathay and obviously they don't either. This is a more important move to me than ANA's recent decision to dispose of their 747-400 fleet.
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:05 am

First of all sales rep are not like us sitting here 24/7 to figure out who makes what and who buys what, he is only trying to get people to sell CX, apart from the 747 thing, the rest of the thing that was mentioned pretty much matches what CX said previously.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 21):
Take a route like Jakarta to Hong Kong. If they offer a single A380, the Jakarta passengers will have limited or no connections to longhaul services

Correct example. Apart from slot-restricted airports, CX believes offering frequent service gives passenger more choices and more loyalty.
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 23206
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:13 am

I have to admit the A380 looks absolutely stunning in CX livery:

http://www.cardatabase.net/modifiedairlinerphotos/photos/big/00006518.jpg
Image by Henry Lam based on his template. Provided courtesy of Modified Airliner Photos


I still believe it is far too early to write CX off for the A388. HKG-LHR and HKG-LAX could both be reasonable destinations for the plane and with the influx of 777-300ERs coming into the fleet, CX can indeed pursue their "frequency over capacity" philosophy for the next half-decade or so and then make a decision on whether to increase capacity.

The 747-8I probably still has a better then average chance of flying in CX colors thanks to CX Cargo having a better then average chance of acquiring the 747-8F. However, CX is a customer for the 744BCF so they have plenty of 744s available for conversion which may cover their needs.
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15325
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:43 am

Quoting Manni (Reply 4):
, 3 of these do not equal an A380.

You'll get more traffic with more frequency, not with bigger aircraft. How do you think it's possible for United to fly ORD-SYR 6 times a day with 70 seater traffic, when the local demand between ORD and SYR could probably barely fill one 737? The only place an A380 may work is in slot constrained airports that have a high traffic volume.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
cloudyapple
Posts: 1261
Joined: Sun Jul 24, 2005 7:01 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:34 am

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

This is indeed well known in the industry, it's not news at all. Looking at Cathay's growth pattern over the last 10 years, it's pretty clear.

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 13):
Agree, but many Asian airlines have bought a ULH aircraft for New York and the most airlines are not happy with this route. Thai lost good money with ther A340-500 service to New York.
And the A380 is not really a aircraft for such special flights.

He meant getting 3 A346s specially for JFK. Cathay can do the same getting 5 A388s for Heathrow.

The only route which Cathay can effectively utilize the A388s would be Heathrow. ALL its other routes can be grown by upping frequencies, even Los Angeles. Heathrow is a very special destination. Demand seems to be unlimited. Supply is trying to keep up but at great cost (Heathrow slots). Thus the A388 makes sense there.

Also the timing of the Heathrow flights is an important factor. Most passengers prefer night flights and the westbound schedule only works for a late night departure and first thing in the morning arrival. Departing any earlier from Hong Kong, Heathrow's nightly curfew comes into play. You can't depart any later either. Once you schedule past 1am it's not going to be as attractive and you run into the European arrival rush at Heathrow. So there is this rush to get out between 2300L and 0100L. There are 6 flights to London within this period.

Not only are there restrictions at Heathrow, there are restrictions in Hong Kong too. There are flow restrictions into Chinese airspace, through which all European flights will have to pass, from Hong Kong. There are 13 flights scheduled to go North from Hong Kong between 2300L and 0030L. There are also a couple of freighters. The flow rate imposed is 5 minutes between B330 departures. Factor in delay caused by wandering passengers and anything on the airlines' part these 18 slots are just enough for the demand. It is very difficult to add any more European departures during these hours. Bigger aircraft is the way to go for this rush, until China and Russia open up more Asia/Europe routes.

The next bunch is the early morning HK departures/early afternoon Heathrow arrivals. Only Cathay operates a mid afternoon HK departure to arrive Heathrow in the evening. Demand for daylight flights are not as high and promotions are almost always available for those flights.

As for Heathrow Hong Kong, departure timing is not as critial. The schedule has still 2 bunches but a bit more scattered (over a 4 hour period).

And for sure Cathay needs something bigger than the B773ER to replace it's B744s, some of which are reaching 17/18 years old and are being rolled over by second hand SIA aircraft to become BCFs. B773ERs are still a tad bit smaller than the B744s.
A310/A319/20/21/A332/3/A343/6/A388/B732/5/7/8/B742/S/4/B752/B763/B772/3/W/E145/J41/MD11/83/90
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:31 am

Quoting RedChili (Reply 17):
Most other airlines flying between Asia and Australia use A330s, A340s, 747s and 777s with between 240-380 seats.

I checked the schedule and found out that Qantas even puts lots of 763s on flights from Hong Kong to Australia, so their biggest direct competitor actually has smaller airplanes than CX.

Quoting Zoom1018 (Reply 20):
Businessmen may have to rush so a midnight flight doesn't help them.

On the contrary, midnight flights are excellent for businessmen. They can have a full day's work in Hong Kong, and after work they've got 3-5 hours to relax before they have to go to the airport. On arrival in London, they can check in to a hotel and get a shower before going to work at 9:00 AM. So a midnight flight is the only flight which means that they don't have to rush.

Quoting Incitatus (Reply 21):
Your reasoning is incorrect so may I suggest words like "dumb" are not used to describe what other people say?

Say Cathay places three flights with smaller aircraft on a route, instead of one A380. It should see significantly more traffic with the three flights. Their service on the route will be more attractive than their competitors', and they will leverage their network around Hong Kong to obtain connecting traffic they otherwise would not.

Take a route like Jakarta to Hong Kong. If they offer a single A380, the Jakarta passengers will have limited or no connections to longhaul services. If they offer three A330 services, they become a much more attractive choice to Jakarta travelers going to almost anywhere outside of SE Asia. Thus much more traffic.

In my opinion, your reasoning is incorrect and a distraction from the real issue. Why?

1. The A380 is a long haul plane, while HKG-CGK is a medium-haul flight. The A380 isn't optimal for such a short flight.
2. CX today has two, not three, daily flights between HKG-CGK.
3. Three A330s from CX would seat around 930 passengers, while one A380 would probably seat around 480. It's quite obvious that they would get more traffic with three flights and 930 seats than one flight with 480 seats.
4. I've never heard any of the current A380 customers talking about putting their A380s on flights where they today send an A330. Most destinations that are mentioned are those places where they're flying the 744 today (except for EK which doesn't have any 747s). So your comparison of an A330 with an A380 is just fiction and not from the real world.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 22):
Cathay will not order the A380 at this time seems cut and dry. It would seem that this is just one more indication of a industry wide move away from jumbo jets.

Everybody knows that they won't order today. The question is if they will order the A380 within a few years time. And don't mention CX when you talk about a "move away from jumbo jets," since IIRC, Cathay is actually adding to their 747-pax fleet. As far as I know, CX is the only airline which is increasing their 747-pax fleet.

Quoting Coa747 (Reply 22):
People talk about how LHR could sustatin an A380 by Cathay but fail to consider that if every airline who now operates HGK-LHR switched to an A380 on that route it would dump a whole lot of extra seats on the market and even a premium route like that may not have enough demand to fill all those seats.

Of all airlines flying the 747 today between LON-HKG, the only ones who have ordered the A380 are QF (with one daily flight), and VS (with one daily flight). CX, BA, NZ and Oasis have not ordered the A380, and I believe that those four airlines have a total of 9 daily flights. And VS doesn't even fly their biggest bird there today, so I doubt if they would put the A380 on HKG.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 24):
I still believe it is far too early to write CX off for the A388.

In my opinion, CX will eventually order the A380 or the 748 (or possibly both). I believe that they will wait until the A380 has been in service for a year or two before making their decision. My guess is 60-40 in favor of the A380.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 25):
How do you think it's possible for United to fly ORD-SYR 6 times a day with 70 seater traffic, when the local demand between ORD and SYR could probably barely fill one 737?

ORD-SYR is a totally different league than HKG-LHR or HKG-LAX. You're comparing peanuts with water melons.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
jimyvr
Posts: 1597
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 1:08 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:36 am

Quoting RedChili (Reply 27):
ORD-SYR is a totally different league than HKG-LHR or HKG-LAX. You're comparing peanuts with water melons.

No, the theory is similar is similar although the orientation is different league.
1000 - 01MAR07 | http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15325
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 3:23 am

Quoting RedChili (Reply 27):
ORD-SYR is a totally different league than HKG-LHR or HKG-LAX. You're comparing peanuts with water melons.

You might want to try that again Silly. Hub traffic flows operate under similar principles whether they're peanuts or watermelons.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
User avatar
glideslope
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 8:06 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:04 am

Quoting 6thfreedom (Reply 1):
Offer them a good J class product, and 3 frequencies per day rather than 1 monster A380, and 9 times out of 10 you will get them.

Looks like another Boeing forecast to me.  bigthumbsup 
To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.” Sun Tzu
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:08 am

Quoting Jimyvr (Reply 28):
No, the theory is similar is similar although the orientation is different league.



Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 29):
You might want to try that again . Hub traffic flows operate under similar principles whether they're peanuts or watermelons.

The theory is not similar at all, for many reasons:

1. With a two-hour flight ORD-SYR, it's possible to work a couple of hours in Chicago in the morning, and then catch a flight and work a few hours at the other end also. With a 12 hour flight, that possibility is lost. Jet-lag and overnight flights are not an issue on ORD-SYR.

2. I suspect that very many of the pax on the ORD-SYR flight connect to multiple other flights at ORD, departing at all hours of the day. It's a totally different case with HKG-LHR. Many CX flights arriving into HKG from all over Asia are timed to fit with the midnight departure bank to Europe.

3. Most pax don't demand the same kind of comfort on a short flight as on a long flight. Most European airlines today offer basically the same seats in economy and business on short flights, while business passengers on long flights demand a fully flat bed. Short haul: Frequency over comfort. Long haul: Comfort over frequency.

4. Slots is not a problem at SYR.

But if you think that this is exactly the same, can you then explain to me why UA has six daily flights ORD-SYR, and only two daily flights ORD-FRA? Why do they operate one 744 and one 772 daily to FRA? Why don't they operate four 763s instead?
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15325
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:41 am

Quoting RedChili (Reply 31):
The theory is not similar at all, for many reasons:

All completely irrelevant. The point is that greater frequency is going to generate more traffic than bigger aircraft when you are running a hub. Two 250 seaters between LHR and HKG are going to generate more traffic than one 500 seater, just as six daily 70 seaters between SYR and ORD will generate more traffic than one 420 seater. Everything else you mentioned is immaterial.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 31):
Why don't they operate four 763s instead?

Because between UA and LH they actually operate five flights for that precise reason  

[Edited 2007-04-13 21:44:58]
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 4:52 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 32):
The point is that greater frequency is going to generate more traffic than bigger aircraft when you are running a hub. Two 250 seaters between LHR and HKG are going to generate more traffic than one 500 seater,

I disagree with you concerning this. Greater frequency will not necessarily generate more traffic on long haul flights, because of the factors I mentioned above.

Just look at BA between HKG-LHR. They've got three 744s leaving HKG within one hour. It seems to me that BA does not agree with you. Otherwise, they would've put five 772s on that route instead, and spaced them throughout the whole day. But they're using the biggest airplane in their fleet, and all three of them are leaving practically at the same time.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 32):
Because between UA and LH they actually operate five flights for that precise reason

My Star timetable says four: UA 1 744 + 1 772, LH 1 744 + 1 A343.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
JAL
Posts: 3876
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2000 12:37 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:15 am

It sounds like no A380 for CX!
Work Hard But Play Harder
 
MaverickM11
Posts: 15325
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2000 1:59 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:23 am

Quoting RedChili (Reply 33):
Greater frequency will not necessarily generate more traffic on long haul flights

It's the whole reason hubs exist. It's the fundamental raison d'etre for hubs.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 33):
They've got three 744s leaving HKG within one hour

There are more factors than just "more frequency"--plane availability and travel preferences being just a couple which probably dictate BA's HKGLHR schedule. The LHRHKG schedule is much more spread out with those three flights leaving between 1800 and 2200. CX, on the other hand, has four flights spread throughout the day westbound to LHR, with only two flights that are wingtips around midnight.

Quoting RedChili (Reply 33):
My Star timetable says four: UA 1 744 + 1 772, LH 1 744 + 1 A343.

I just looked at today which has LH343, UA744, LH744, UA763, and UA777.
E pur si muove -Galileo
 
RedChili
Posts: 1440
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 9:23 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:58 am

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 35):
It's the whole reason hubs exist. It's the fundamental raison d'etre for hubs.

Once more, I disagree with you. The reason for hubs is not to be able to send lots of small airplanes on long haul flights. In my opinion, the reason for hubs are:

1. To simplify the timetable and flight planning.
2. To get more passengers onto flights that could not manage on O&D traffic alone.

Point 2 suggests that hubs will actually enable the airline to use bigger airplanes than what would be the case without the hub.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 35):
There are more factors than just "more frequency"--plane availability and travel preferences being just a couple which probably dictate BA's HKGLHR schedule.

Exactly! Now I really agree with you. There are other things than frequency which matters a lot. You yourself use the words "travel preferences." That's what most of my reply 31 was about.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 35):
The LHRHKG schedule is much more spread out with those three flights leaving between 1800 and 2200.

It depends upon what you mean by "much more." In my opinion, "much more" would be one flight in the morning, one in the afternoon, and one in the evening. But all three depart in the evening.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 35):
CX, on the other hand, has four flights spread throughout the day westbound to LHR, with only two flights that are wingtips around midnight.

Notice that those two midnight flights are the 747 flights, while the daytime flights are A343s, which are the smallest airplane in their fleet. Also notice Cloudyapple's reply 26, where he said, "Demand for daylight flights are not as high and promotions are almost always available for those flights." Those two daytime flights probably carry a higher proportion of leisure travellers with discount tickets. I can guarantee that yields are better on the midnight flights.

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 35):
I just looked at today which has LH343, UA744, LH744, UA763, and UA777.

Okay, the Star Alliance timetable didn't mention the UA763. But the principle that I spoke about in reply 31 is still the same. LH and UA could have raised the frequency by only using 763s and A343s on the route, but both of them fly a 747 every day.
Top 10 airplanes: B737, T154, B747, IL96, T134, IL62, A320, MD80, B757, DC10
 
EXAAUADL
Posts: 1740
Joined: Tue Jun 13, 2006 3:48 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:59 am

Quoting Jimyvr (Thread starter):
At this stage, Cathay Pacific's mind is "frequency over capacity" at this point, which they prefer to provide high-frequency service to regional route, one of the airline's main core market as well as the long route.

Then they will need a narrowbody like the A320 or 737 family
 
jfk777
Posts: 5863
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:23 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:06 am

The Cathay 773ER are going to be every where the A340 and 744 are. Toronto nonstop will be a great 777 city for Cathay. SFO, JFK, LHR and LAX will also see plenty of the new 773ER fleet.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:41 am

Quoting RedChili (Reply 27):
4. I've never heard any of the current A380 customers talking about putting their A380s on flights where they today send an A330. Most destinations that are mentioned are those places where they're flying the 744 today (except for EK which doesn't have any 747s). So your comparison of an A330 with an A380 is just fiction and not from the real world.

...of course, EK packs more pax in their B773s than most carriers to in their B744's.... Wink


....that being said, I don't expect CX to be looking at either the B748 nor A380 for a while... no .....especially with all of the B773ER's coming in online.....I think they will be set for a while... yes 
"Up the Irons!"
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 4928
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:43 am

Quoting Carpethead (Reply 6):
As a sidenote, between 2315 & 0035, there are six 744 flights between QF, BA & CX on the HKG-LHR. That's sick. This doesn't include VS, which probably flies around the same time.

QF is now a daylight flight from HKG-LHR leaving HKG at 0800ish.

Quoting Jfk777 (Reply 38):
The Cathay 773ER are going to be every where the A340 and 744 are. Toronto nonstop will be a great 777 city for Cathay. SFO, JFK, LHR and LAX will also see plenty of the new 773ER fleet.

LHR won't see CX 77W's for a few years yet, currently you can't fly a twin on the route anyway.

As for CX getting the A380 I'm not entirely sure but I certainly think they will order the A380 or the 748I, the only long haul flights CX need such an aircraft is North America and Europe outside of the Intra Asia runs. Some OZ flights may go to the slightly larger 77W as will AKL which is currently 1 daily 343 in Northern summer and 2 daily in the Northern Winter.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9930
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:56 am

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 9):
But two A343 will be the same capacity as one A380, and one A380 lost about 150 seats to two A333 on the same route. Business travellers loves frequency and CX knows this and do this on their route network and they do damm right.

The company will tend to start a new service with the 343, on a long thin route, develop the market, then put a larger aircraft on it. All the comments being made in the thread starter to me is stating the obvious, don't start a new route with a 744, it takes time to develop a market.

It will then tend to start a new timing with the 340, once that market is developed, put a larger aircraft in it.

Once that works, the look at a new timing, or a new destination.

Quoting CrazyHorse (Reply 9):
The only route in their network which could fit a A380 is LHR, but I don´t think that CX will buy the Superjumbo for only one big destination.

It fits many places, North America, TPE, China, and Europe, just don't need it at the moment, they are building up route with 744 capacity, once a route out grows that, then it might be time to change. I terms of fuel, the 744 ad 380 basically burn at the same rate, so costs do not go up that much for the additional capacity.

Noise issues at some airports and other slot restrictions may accelerate that process. Looking at the historical seat growth, the seating capacity has been increasing over the fleet with time.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:09 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 41):
I terms of fuel, the 744 ad 380 basically burn at the same rate, so costs do not go up that much for the additional capacity

Or you can buy a 748 and get lower trip costs, making it possible to put one on a route sooner, and make more money as it develops. You also save with minimal retraining of existing MX mechanics, and no dramatic departure from current parts inventory.

Or even better roll the 777 and other existing aircraft till you know that Y3 will be for your new large aircraft.
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:15 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 40):
LHR won't see CX 77W's for a few years yet, currently you can't fly a twin on the route anyway

Huh? Why do you think that? If AF can fly a 773ER on HKG-CDG, what stops CX from flying a 773ER on HKG-LHR? The 773ER has more than enough range to do the mission.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9930
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacit

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:24 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 42):
Or you can buy a 748 and get lower trip costs, making it possible to put one on a route sooner, and make more money as it develops. You also save with minimal retraining of existing MX mechanics, and no dramatic departure from current parts inventory.

The 748i and A380 do not provide lower trip costs over a second hand 744.

You know very little of our operation by making that comment about mechanics.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 42):
Or even better roll the 777 and other existing aircraft till you know that Y3 will be for your new large aircraft.

By the time enough 777s would be available, it would be made obsolete by the A350XWB.

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 43):
Huh? Why do you think that? If AF can fly a 773ER on HKG-CDG, what stops CX from flying a 773ER on HKG-LHR? The 773ER has more than enough range to do the mission.

We cannot fly 777s over the hump at the moment due to local CAA requirements, what AF does is up to the DGAC. They could be flown south over India, but that is not saving anything.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
cslusarc
Posts: 553
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 2:29 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:35 am

I'm still surprised that CX still flies A343s to/from LHR on a daily basis. I expected that LHR was a 744 exclusive destination.
--cslusarc from YWG
 
OldAeroGuy
Posts: 3208
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 6:50 am

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:38 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
We cannot fly 777s over the hump at the moment due to local CAA requirements, what AF does is up to the DGAC.

It appears that AF flies 777's almost exclusively on the CDG-HKG route. So the issue is one of local regulation rather than airplane related. A blanket statement that twins can't be used on the route is incorrect.
Airplane design is easy, the difficulty is getting them to fly - Barnes Wallis
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9930
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 10:59 am

Quoting OldAeroGuy (Reply 46):
A blanket statement that twins can't be used on the route is incorrect.

I didn't make a blanket statement, it was very specific, and relevant to the thread, unlike your AF comment.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2639
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:25 am

Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
By the time enough 777s would be available, it would be made obsolete by the A350XWB.

By the time the 777 is "obsolete" its very likely that it would be worth the wait for a look at Y3, after all I bet they got alot more on their plate than just the immediate replacement of 777 they just got.

Quoting Zeke (Reply 44):
The 748i and A380 do not provide lower trip costs over a second hand 744.

You know very little of our operation by making that comment about mechanics.

So clearly you advise getting the A380 when it has 0 commonality with any existing airframe, and a HIGHER price-tag than the 748. Not to mention the fact the A380 will have far lower value for conversion to a freighter.
 
User avatar
zeke
Posts: 9930
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 1:42 pm

RE: Cathay Pacific Heads For Frequency Not Capacity

Sat Apr 14, 2007 11:33 am

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 48):
By the time the 777 is "obsolete" its very likely that it would be worth the wait for a look at Y3, after all I bet they got alot more on their plate than just the immediate replacement of 777 they just got.

I suggest you read the annual report, before commenting further. You are way off the mark.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 48):

So clearly you advise getting the A380 when it has 0 commonality with any existing airframe, and a HIGHER price-tag than the 748. Not to mention the fact the A380 will have far lower value for conversion to a freighter.

I suppose with the discounts that Boeing are splashing about make the 748-i a very cheap airframe, one could pick it up cheaper than a 777, but that still is not attractive enough. We are still better off getting second hand 744s for about the same capability.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar