B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 3:56 pm

Looks like the airwhiners grapevine got this one correct.

Graham Atkinson will likely make an official announcement sometime this week (possibly as soon as Monday evening but I havent seen it on the wire services yet).

Reason to be cited is the restrictions that prevent third-country codeshares on the route, as well as the changing economic climate.

Last flight will be August 30.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
DeltaSFO
Posts: 2407
Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2000 11:22 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 4:25 pm

That's aweso.... I mean, that's too bad.
It's a new day. Every moment matters. Now, more than ever.
 
ILUV767
Posts: 3035
Joined: Mon May 29, 2000 2:21 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 4:28 pm

 Crying  Crying  Crying  Crying  Crying Waaaaaaaaa!  Crying  Crying  Crying  Crying  Crying


I L U V 7 6 7
 
hkgspotter1
Posts: 5750
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 12:43 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 4:55 pm

I dont give a monkey's if they stop, but I wanted to see their 777's.
 
767-322ETOPS
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 9:06 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 9:05 pm

Poor load factors were cited as well.

Anybody read the June Airways article on CO's EWR-HKG? Very interesting article.
 
Continental777
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2000 4:09 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 11:41 pm

It's true, try to make a reservation after August for the flight.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8030
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Tue Jun 26, 2001 11:43 pm

I think the loss of UA's JFK-HKG route is due to the fact UA doesn't have a plane that can fly this route completely full economically. Also, it's not a good origin and destination (O & D) route like ORD-HKG, LAX-HKG and SFO-HKG.

I think CO will continue their EWR-HKG flights, and CX's HKG-JFK flights will use two 193-seat A340-300's until the A346 becomes available.
 
akelley728
Posts: 1968
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 1999 12:35 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:20 am

767-322ETOPS:

What did the article say about the CO EWR-HKG flight?

 
globetrotter
Posts: 172
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2000 4:35 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:30 am

This news certainly begs the question: how is Continental faring with their EWR-HKG flight? Sounds as if the latest Airways article might shed some light. Can anyone summarize the article for us non-subscribers? Thanks.

Globetrotter
 
United Airline
Posts: 8782
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2001 5:24 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:52 am

UA should have sent a B 777-200ER instead.

It is possible that they restart this route, if they get the B 747-400ER in the future.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 1:57 am

Flights are now zero'd out.

bye bye JFK - HKG!
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
artsyman
Posts: 4516
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2001 12:35 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 2:02 am

The article is too long to get into details, but for those interested, the EWR>HKG has been very successful for Continental thus far. Loads have generally been about 85% capacity, although I know plenty of people that have tried non-revving on the flight 99 and got bumped as it keeps going out full

Jer
 
Guest

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 3:42 am

HAHA. yes this is how it works. The flights out of EWR are going out full because of the enormous feeder traffic. Return flights are going out 70% full because of the lack of asian feeder flights. The average coming out to 85%. makes sense to me..... except for the fact that those who make the flight out to HKG do have to return at some point.... oh well schools is out FDS!
 
CO777-200ER
Posts: 375
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 6:57 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 4:19 am

YAAAAAAAA!!!!
Im glad to see that CO is doing pretty well on this flight and I hope this flight does well for them for a looooong time.


GO CONTINENTAL
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 4:49 am

United still has nonstops from San Fran, LA, Chicago, Tokyo, Singapore, and New Delhi.

Continental has....... guam?
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 5:48 am

According to Graham Atkinson, the last flight from New York will be on August 29th, the last flight from Hong Kong will be August 30th. The many restrictions placed on this flight to Hong Kong as well as the economic climate at the present time are the two factors which contributed to the cancellation. With the JFK-HKG flight, the restrictions prevent United from engaging in third country code-sharing flights with alliance partners beyond Hong Kong to other Asian destinations. Without these code-shares to Hong Kong, the feed to each airline's network is severely reduced.

No jobs will be lost, and United will continue to serve the US-Hong Kong market through Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Tokyo

I'm definitly gettin' on that flight before August 29th!  Smile

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8030
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 9:59 am

I think UA's SFO/LAX-HKG flights will definitely continue. Mostly due to the feeder traffic to SFO and LAX from other parts of the USA, not to mention the fact Los Angeles and San Francisco have large enough ethnic Chinese to support the flight year-round in both directions.
 
Guest

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:04 am

Alright, the flight was only 25% full , thats the only reason United is ceasing the flight...I guess 15 hours is a long flight!
 
Guest

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:04 am

Alright, the flight was only 25% full , thats the only reason United is ceasing the flight...
 
Guest

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:04 am

Alright, the flight was only 25% full , thats the only reason United is ceasing the flight...I guess 15 hours is a long flight!
 
desertjets
Posts: 7588
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:20 am

Perhaps United was hoping for more O&D on this route than actually exisited.

Can anyone explain to me the 3rd country code-share restrictions at HKG? But then how much would feed traffic from Asian Star partners made any sort of difference.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:37 am

IMO, the 3rd country code-share restriction excuse is just for face saving. The same restriction applies to the ORD-HKG service. Why haven't they pulled the plug on the ORD-HKG service? Because they have the monopoly on the route. The NYC-HKG market does not have enough premium traffic to support three nonstop services. That's why UA is pulling out of the market a few days before CX is to start their own HKG-JFK nonstop. This is not a coincidence.

Anyhow, I think UA is quite mean. Big grin They waited until CX committed to the route with three specially configured low density A340s. CX will not be able to make money with the low density A340s. CX's own nonstop service will take away premium traffic from their HKG-YVR-JFK B744 service. CX will likely be losing money on both JFK flights. To reconfigure the low density A340s will be too costly, so CX is stuck with the HKG-JFK flight. A possible solution is to downgrade the B744 service. In short, methinks UA has put CX in a very awkward position.
 
co/ba
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue May 22, 2001 1:55 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:41 am

CO's loads for flt 99 are normaly very close to capacity. The return flt 98 usualy isn't as high but I've seen it come back pretty full a couple of times.
I didn't see the article but I saw a piece on Discovery or learning channel called "Wonders Of The World" that did a long segment on flt 99/98.
 
klwright69
Posts: 2441
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2000 4:22 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 11:10 am

I went on and on and on about this in another thread recently... I asserted that this route was a RIDICULOUS move for UA and made no economic sense for them whatsoever.......The SOLE reason for this move was to ONE-UP Continental and take some of the spotlight off them for starting this route...

Anyone care to disagree NOW !?!?

Furthermore, the fact that UA put a 747 on the route and not a 777 didn't even pass the laugh test in my mind... More proof they just had to do it bigger and better... On that same thread a number of people said they were so sure that of CO,CX, and UA; CO was going to be the one to get clobbered by UA, despite their hub there. One poster said UA "got in over their heads" with this route and he was chastised by some of the other posters with the view i just described before..

WE TOLD YOU SO!
 
BarfBag
Posts: 2386
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2001 7:13 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:13 pm

I dont understand why UA had to take up JFK-HKG at all. Why didn't they do IAD-HKG ? They have a hub at Dulles, but not at JFK. At IAD they could have fed the HKG flight better. Any ideas ? Was the distance too long ? I didnt know IAD was *that* far from JFK!
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:21 pm

Of course UA had to 'one-up' Continental!  Smile What do you think they are? Crazy!?!  Smile

The reason why third city ticketing doesn't really matter to the ORD-HKG flight is because ORD-HKG is flown full.

RayChung...you amaze me with your wisdom! Great call on the LAX and SFO-HKG routes! Wow!  Insane
 
VH-ANA
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:08 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 12:53 pm

Anyway,i think UA can fly HKG-IAD on 777-222ERs,they have hub in IAD,and distance between HKG-IAD is a little-bit longer than HKG-EWR,so,they still can fly the longest flights in the world!!!!

and UA should be add more flights from HKG to their hub,such as SFO,ORD,LAX,differcult to reserve a "seat"
during whole year!!!!!!

the 2nd flights of those city could be use 747-422or777-222ER to fly!!!!!!!!

and about the flights HKG-JFK,i think they just downgrade to 777,can be solve the problem easily.......
744 is too wastle oil,and too easy to make loss,if the passangers no is low.......
 
VH-ANA
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2000 3:08 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 1:04 pm

and then tell u a fact,about the successful flight HKG-ORD

When this flights started in 1996,the passanger loan is very low,lower than UA820/821
during the summer,the passanger no just around 2digit number.............

So,i think the only reason why UA pulling out HKG-JFK,is WEIGHT RESTRICTTION!!!!!!!!!!
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 2:53 pm

VH-ANA,

What are you trying to say? I can't understand that at all.

Dynkrisolo,

IMHO, I reckon that's nonsense. The fact that UA pulled out a few days before CX starts is nothing to do with CX committing to low-density 343's. The configuration of the CX 343's is going to be 8F/60J and 125Y.

60J - that's a lot of money, and if they are lowering the pax, then they can increase cargo, which UA can't take anymore.

In fact, I think UA gave itself the WORST possible opportunity to succeed on this route.

CX will NOT lose money on both JFK flights, they offer a far superior product to UA (IMHO), especially in the first class. And they have tremendous feed from their HKG hub, a massive feed of premium traffic as well, I'd suspect.

On the contrary, I expect CX to INCREASE profits, especially when the A340-600's are sent on the route.

The Coachman
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 7:50 pm

Coachman:

They will have a good chance making money with the A346, but they don't have much a chance to make money on a 191-seat A343. They will need close to 100% load on every flight to make a profit, and that's not going to happen. During the low seasons, there is no way they can fill up the plane day in and day out. Demand for low fare traffic can be increased by offering cheap fares. Demand for premium traffic doesn't vary much. CX can fill their JFK-YVR-HKG with low fare traffic, but you can be assured that the front cabins will be a lot more empty. You can't make money on the B744 flight without a respectable load in the front cabins. CX will lose money on both flights. CX management was very reluctant to fly nonstop between JFK and HKG because they didn't think any current aircraft that they have can fly the route profitably. They were forced into the market by CO and UA's moves. Now UA pulls out, it's good news for CX because it means less bloodshed. But I still don't think they can make a profit on the route. This service serves as a placeholder until they can deploy the A346 probably in early 2003. In the meantime, I think it's a good idea to downgrade their JFK-YVR-HKG service from the B744 to the A343.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8030
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 10:46 pm

Dynkrisolo,

I don't think downgrading the HKG-YVR-JFK route to an A340-300 is such a good idea. The reason is simple: Vancouver, BC has a very large ex-patriate Hong Kong population, and they would not appreciate losing a lot of seat capacity on flights between YVR and HKG, something that will definitely happen if CX switches to the A343 from the 747-400 on this route.
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 11:09 pm

Dynkrisolo,

With the A340-300 carrying so few pax, they can load up more on cargo, something the A340-300 has an advantage over the B747-400 (if I'm not mistaken - if I am, I retract that statement). If you've noticed, the configuration of the 193 is as follows: 8F, 60J, 125Y. They've increased the J load over the standard 343 by 50% and the Y has been taken down by 35%. They basically have got the premium load of a B747-400 without the excess weight that a B747-400 would be if it flew empty.

CO has a EWR hub, CX has a HKG hub, UA had neither, especially from the originating end. It had the worst inflight service of the 3 to boot.

If it so desired, CX wouldn't have to reduce the capacity of the HKG-YVR-JFK route by putting a 343. They could just reduce the 2nd daily flight HKG-YVR to a 343 (for all 7 days) and leave the 744 on the HKG-YVR-JFK run. That way, premium pax who would fly on the 744 (one) to YVR will be forced onto the HKG-YVR-JFK 744 (two).

I agree that when the A340-600's come, the one-stop can be canned though the YVR-JFK link is the only direct link between the two cities. I don't know how much traffic there is between the two, though cargo has been ignored in your post.

Cargo is profitable for airlines. Don't just talk about pax, there's cargo as well.

I wouldn't bet against CX on this one, their service has a big reputation. And they may even get feed from SYD. I have relatives in HKG and NY State, my mum has friends in YVR...I could do a SYD-HKG-JFK-YVR-HKG-SYD trip and earn a heck of a lot of points.

The Coachman
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
Alpha 1
Posts: 12343
Joined: Sat Feb 03, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Wed Jun 27, 2001 11:27 pm

On the point of UA possibly running IAD-HKG. Techincally, I imagine it's feesable, but I'll bet their load factors would have been no better. Washington is not the International business center that New York or Hong Kong are, and that's the whole reason CO and UA, and, soon CX, are running those flights-to connect two of the largest business markets in the world. IAD just doesn't fit into that mix, feeder traffic notwithstanding. I imaigne most of the feeder traffic would have been FROM New York.

As for the observation that UA should add flights from ORD, LAX, SFO to HKG because it's "hard" to reserve a seat. Forget it. If it"s that hard to reserve a seat, then UA obviously has very high load factors on those routes. You don't add service just to add seats. UA would only add more service if they thought they could also fill those planes, making it no easier to reserve a seat.

Frankly, I'm stunned UA is abandoning JFK-HKG so quickly.
 
Airbus A3XX
Posts: 479
Joined: Wed May 19, 1999 5:12 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:34 am

I guess the reason for the poor load is no one would like to try on UA's poor 747 service(in terms of seat comfort) on such a long flight  Smile
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 1:43 am

Airbus -- the same seat pitch as EVERYONE else  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

-------------------------------
and ORD-HKG loads have never fallen below 3 digits .. EVER... this comes from people who are on actual UAL payroll who have access to this... but that flight has never left with fewer than 100 folks on board... paying or nonrev.

And btw, a full flight doesn't mean they are making money.  Smile/happy/getting dizzy Look at TWA !
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
PA006
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2000 9:19 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 2:02 am

Regarding the issue on fifth freedom and onward flight rights from HKG, I am wondering what are the specific rules in the bilateral.

UA does operate 805/6 to/from SIN and at one point there is a flight between HKG and BKK also. These are operated with 5th freedom right. And they do have 5th freedom right between HKG and DEL too; correct me if I am wrong.

So are onward flight/5th freedom rights determined on a flight by flight basis? Why is the lack of 5th freedom rights cited as a reason for the poor load?

Another alternative is to time the flight for better connection with 805/6 to/from Singapore. It now takes 6 hours of wait if you try to fly between JFK and SIN using the JFK-HKG nonstop, making it an undesirable alternative.
 
FLY777UAL
Posts: 4830
Joined: Tue May 18, 1999 3:49 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 3:25 am

It's not the lack of fifth freedom rights by United, it's just the lack of the ability to code-share beyond Hong Kong, which is especially important to fill empty flights.

F L Y 7 7 7 U A L
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 3:41 am

Just another piece of rumor coming out of Elk Grove is that the RTW flights may be the next to be axed - possibly as soon as October, but almost definitely by February.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
PA006
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2000 9:19 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 4:56 am

fifth freedom right is one of the reasons cited by United other then code sharing.
 
B747-437B
Topic Author
Posts: 8777
Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 6:54 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:03 am

PA006 - 5th freedom rights are not relevant in this situation because the flight is between the UNITED STATES (of which UA is a designated flag carrier) and Hong Kong. Hence, the issue of 5th freedom rights (which deals with the carriage of pax. between two countries of which the operator is not a flag carrier) does not arise.
"The A340-300 may boast a long range, but the A340 is underpowered" -- Robert Milton, CEO - Air Canada
 
PA006
Posts: 156
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2000 9:19 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:25 am

Of course I know what 5th freedom rights means.

To clarify in case you miss my point.
United cited lack of 5th freedom rights as one of the reasons why load is low in this route:

From CNN - "United said regulatory problems in Hong Kong prevented United from working with alliance partners and from continuing flights beyond Hong Kong to other Asian destinations, contributing to the poor performance of the Hong Kong-New York route... United is unable to engage in third country code-sharing and to operate liberal fifth freedom rights," it said. So-called fifth freedom rights allow an airline to extend flights beyond its original destination country. "

So to repeat my quetion in the first post, what is the rules governing 5th freedom rights in the bilateral?
I am asking because UA does have 5th freedom right on the HKG-SIN leg of the 805/806 flight and also on the HKG-DEL leg of the 1/2 flight.
 
SegmentKing
Posts: 3224
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2000 7:16 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 5:47 am

United is limited to the number of local travelers it can carry into New Delhi.

United is having MAJOR MAJOR MAJOR problems with it's ground handler as well. Totally wrong food loaded, passenges getting sick from food, loading too much fuel, too much fuel, the list is HUGE!

Nate
~ ~ ~ ~ pRoFeSsIoNaL hUrRiCaNe DoDgEr ~ ~ ~ ~
 
YVR
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon May 24, 1999 10:37 am

CX In YVR, And YVR-New York Area

Thu Jun 28, 2001 8:30 am

Hi All,

To clear up Cathay Pacific's operations in YVR...the loads are very high between Vancouver and Hong Kong. All year long there are 4 YVR-HKG flights a day. 2 by Air Canada (one with B744, the other with A343), and 2 by CX.

During summer schedule, all CX flights to YVR are operated by B744 (HKG-YVR and HKG-YVR-JFK). However, during winter schedule, often the HKG-YVR will be operated by an A343 and the HKG-YVR-JFK wil still be done with the B744.

Now, regarding cargo. Cathay Pacific Cargo flies into YVR a few times a week, and most of the days they come in here, they have two cargo flights/night. I have no idea what their cargo schedule is, but their cargo flights to LAX come through YVR on the way from Los Angeles. Also, according to the YVR Flight Info, their JFK cargo flights come via YVR too on the way back to HKG. Now, I don't know if this is a scheduled thing, but often I see on the YVR Flight Info CX Cargo flights coming via YVR from SFO and ORD. CX Cargo uses B744F into YVR.

Regarding Canada, Cathay Pacific also flies into YYZ daily with an A343 via ANC. CX cargo used to fly to YYZ with B744F, but I do not know if they still do.

Also, somebody was saying CX is the only airline providing YVR-JFK service. That is not true. Air Canada operates a daily year-round A319 from YVR to JFK, and American Airlines operates a daily B752 from YVR to JFK during Summer Schedule. AA used to be year-round YVR-JFK, but that ended recently as they do not have Canadian Airlines as a partner anymore to feed New York passengers on to CP's Asian flights. Also, the loads are very good YVR-JFK with CX's daily year-round B744 service, as CX often has the cheapest price on the route, plus the service is excellent. So, at least at this point, the chances of CX dropping YVR-JFK are very slim. Also, during Summer Schedule, Continental has a daily YVR-EWR B738 flight. There are talks that the CO YVR-EWR flight will stay year-round, as they are doing very well with it.

Hopefully that clears some stuff up.

Richard
 
The Coachman
Posts: 1192
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2001 9:57 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 10:01 am

That would have been me, Richard. Sorry about that. I was obviously misinformed. But it has to be admitted that, as you point out, that CX probably has the best service on the route and hence loads are likely to be good.

The Coachman
M88, 722, 732, 733, 734, 73G, 73H, 742, 743, 744, 752, 762, 763, 772, 773, 77W, 320, 332, 333, 345, 388, DH8, SF3 - want
 
dynkrisolo
Posts: 1825
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 12:12 am

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 10:43 am

FLY777UAL:

UA is able to fill the ORD-HKG flights partly because it has a good feed at ORD, but more importantly, it is the only airline flying nonstop from the US Midwest to HKG. If CX and AA decide to compete, then it's unlikely that UA can fill their ORD-HKG flights. My point is UA knows when CX starts flying HKG-JFK nonstop, it is the competition that will drive down the load. If they can codeshare in HKG, it will help, but it's not the primary factor.

Raychuang:

I don't think by switching to the A343 will affect the net capacity out of YVR to HKG. The reason is simple. Traffic between JFK and HKG on the JFK-YVR-HKG flight will drop after CX begins flying nonstop between JFK and HKG.

Coachman:

The reason why CX is configuring a low density A343 is because the route is payload limited. If it is payload limited, it means it cannot carry a full load of cargo either. Plain and simple.

Also, as I say, the demand for premium traffic doesn't fluctuate that much. By putting more J seats does not mean you will automatically get more J traffic. No matter how good CX's reputation is, CX cannot defy the basic economic of airline operations. That's why CX was reluctant to introduce the nonstop service in the first place. They were forced to because CO and UA are drawing premium traffic away from CX. If the route could be operated profitably all year round with a B744 or an A343, CX would not have waited until now.
 
VirginA340
Posts: 2556
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:35 pm

RE: Official : UA's JFK-HKG Is A Goner

Thu Jun 28, 2001 10:50 am

It looks to me that UALis moving everything to IAd as an Easten hub because JFK is DL and AA territory and they are playing safe. Remeber that UAL's round the world flights no longer include JFK but IAD as an Eastcoast US Destination. Of course UAL won't move their LHR flights to JFK because then they'd be completely insane.
"FUIMUS"

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos