Yes I use the same name here and FT, but I don't visit here often.
Seems when their last 2 A359 s get delivered, one due this month and another by Oct, they should change to that and go less than daily. Though how much of a crew scheduling issue is this given they will still operate LAX with 77W. Isn't LAX a base for their expat crews?
Going to 6 per week A359 will get them up to 77% load factors which is their fleet average system wide. And they'll burn lost less fuel. Wonder how much cargo they are taking?
I would be surprised they won't get their last aircraft sooner than October. Checking the production list it's already under final assembly, I would expect it to be ready in July or August. Did CI push the time slot back?
I believe CI does not have any ex-pat crews based in US. They have some Japanese and South East Asia crew. However, they do have ground staff at LA so all ground handling in ONT is also being operated by the LAX based staff.
It's not a simple equipment swap for CI to go from 77W to A359 at ONT.
Right now, CI and use the same pool of crew to operate both LAX and ONT flights after mandatory rest time. If ONT switches to A359, then CI will have to setup a second crew roster rest schedule for LA. I think they choose 77W deliberately to minimize operating costs on the crew scheduling side and hedged by simply moving the daytime CI5/6 over to ONT to protect the load and yield on the late night LAX flight.
It was suspected by many of us, but nope. From what I know CI does not rotate crews between ONT and LAX and ONT is on a 3-day rotation basis. Making it daily could also be a crew rotation issue cause 4 weekly would create that havoc EVA had at SFO (or CAL has to give more rest).
Several people have already mentioned that for ONT to really work, it needs to be a late night departure for O&D so CI should make that switch if it wants this to be a real business. But I think that just exposes the problem... there is already a late night O&D focused flight ex-LAX. If ONT and LAX operates on the same schedule, then it boils down to yield - and I don't think anyone, not even ONT executives can delude themselves into thinking that ONT will earn higher yield. The whole rationale for ONT was that there is an untapped market for this flight. If you are just shuffling LAX passengers to ONT without any increase in yield, then the split operation is kind of pointless. CI should just go back to having 2 flights at LAX and simplify its operations.
Not really. Making it night flight will allow CI 24/3 not only to capture the market of CI 8/7, it will also take some business away from BR. Currently BR has two night flight while CI only has 1. I would think the same amount of business will be taken by CI 24/3 on both sides. Say if CI will lose about 5% (15-20 customers off CI 8/7), I would expect BR to lose also 5% combined for both flights (so 7-10 per flight). 5% is just a hypothetical number, though.
If CI were to swap 359 in, I think the entire LAX operation should be swapped to 359 not because of crew rotation, but to ease the market yield. It would effectively reduce the number of seats on their side and still capture markets from the likes of BR or even CX. LAX can stay 2 daily while ONT goes daily on a 359.
I would agree though, I want to bring this example, please correct me if the comparison is wrong. Y4 has a similar split operation with its GDL's route from ONT and LAX. ONT is primarily at night while at LAX its four nights a week while the remainder are during the morning or afternoon. If CI went with the Y4 model, they would go back to their original 4 daily at night in ONT while doing 7 daily at LAX and perhaps restart their afternoon flights for the days ONT is not operational.
I like many still believe the potential is there for the route to work due to the communities that CI serves live closer to ONT than LAX, though the issue was the boneheaded decision of making this a afternoon flight. This is just beating a dead horse. Now, we have to wait and see if CI management course corrects or sadly just pulls the plug.
You meant weekly for CI? I still believe there is a case for ONT, but it needs to be operated at the right time frame with right aircraft. CAL does not have the right aircraft like ANA, but they should at least try to time it to night flight before calling quit.
A plausible case for CAL would be to keep the original operations at LAX but reduce the number of seats. By operating 359 in this route they will have a superior hardware product in every single way compared to EVA, but they will lose significant amount of Premium Economy passengers because 359 has less seats in configuration.
359 C32W31Y243 v. 77W C40W62Y256
3x = C96W93Y729 v. 2x = C80W124Y512
EVA has mostly C39W56Y258 in operation, current 3x daily yields = C117W168Y774, but can drop to Y238 here to compete with Y714.Corrected by below post: EVA has most C38W56Y238 in operation for LAX, so current 3x daily yields approximately C114W168Y714.
Maybe they could start off with this...? 14 weekly 359 to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT (or 12 weekly 77W to LAX and 5 weekly 359 to ONT).
CI 5 1555-2055 5 weekly (12456)
CI 6 1640-1330 daily
CI 7 0005-0500+1 daily
CI 8 2350-2250 daily
CI 9 0035-0530+1 2 weekly (46)
CI 23 2310-2020 5 weekly (12456)
CI 24 0025-0535+1 5 weekly (12357)
Last edited by coolfish1103
on Tue May 22, 2018 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.