Per CAAC’s latest notice on its website, the Chinese aviation watchdog has just unveiled a set of long-awaited regulatory arrangements regarding slots allocation/airline distribution for Beijing’s upcoming PEK/ZBAD dual-hub system this evening on Thursday, as the opening of Daxing/ZBAD is drawing closer day by day (http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/ZFGW/2 ... 93821.html)

Key takeaways:
• No Chinese airline would be allowed to operate at both PEK and ZBAD except cargo carrier China Postal Airlines

• CZ and MU as well as their subsidiaries, plus Beijing Capital Airlines and China United Airlines, would operate at ZBAD

• CA as well as its subsidiaries, HU, and CN would operate at PEK

• Other Chinese airlines than those mentioned above are given the option to operate at EITHER PEK OR ZBAD as they see fit, and again NOT BOTH

• Foreign airlines as well as airlines from HK/MO/TW are allowed to operate at either PEK or ZBAD or even at both airports

Annual pax traffic targets for the dual hubs

ZBAD:
45M by 2021
72M by 2025

PEK:
66M-67M by 2021
82M by 2025

Slots:
ZBAD:
1050 during 6:00-01:59
PEK:
1350 during 6:00-01:59

Obviously, very lenient and reassuring arrangements for non-mainland Chinese carriers

Also I must give a very big thumbs up to CAAC for keeping its policy promise back in 2016 regarding Chinese carriers distribution btwn the two airports

Date of publication: 2019-12-28

Someone forget to double check what they published

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

Why are the splitting Hainan and its subsidiaries?

I reckon regional carriers like Korean Air, Asiana, ANA or JAL could operate at both airports. After all they do the same in Shanghai (PVG/SHA).

I believe Finnair is extremely happy that there will be plenty of free slots available in Beijing after ZBAD is opened. I wonder if Finnair is going to increase the number of weekly flights to PEK or start operating to Daxing as well. If the planned partnership with CZ materializes, AY could even move to Daxing in the future.

Zoedyn wrote:

Annual pax traffic targets for the dual hubs

ZBAD:
45M by 2021
72M by 2025

PEK:
66M-67M by 2021
82M by 2025

Just an observation based on many comments on a-net over the years as well as published information from generally reliable sources: Can China (civilian) ATC accommodate these planned additional flights and still deliver an acceptable on-time product or will a large, second airport in PEK simply tank a system that appears to be very near capacity currently?

This article is a couple years old but I'm guessing it still has some valid points. http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/201604 ... -nightmare

"Aviation experts agree that one of the main problems in China is the fact the country’s airspace is largely controlled by the military, leaving little room for civilian aircraft even as the domestic airline industry booms. According to the state-run China Daily newspaper, less than 30% of China’s airspace can be used by commercial airlines, compared to about 80% of the airspace in the United States."

Kind of a shame that Chinese carriers wont be able to offer services to both airports from their hubs, say CX flying to both from CAN and URC for instance. So CA gets Beijing's "close-in" airport all to themselves basically.

Blerg wrote:

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

Only one that I can think of that might be interested is CX. They run enough flights that it might be worth running a couple of peak hour flights to both airports.

Would CX and KA face the same restrictions as the Chinese carriers?

Ziyulu wrote:

Would CX and KA face the same restrictions as the Chinese carriers?

No.

• CZ and MU as well as their subsidiaries, plus Beijing Capital Airlines and China United Airlines, would operate at ZBAD
• CA as well as its subsidiaries, HU, and CN would operate at PEK

Basically it means Hainan Group is split. Or may be CAAC knows that, given Hainan Group's current difficulties, it would not be one group any more at the time ZBAD opens? Is this an indication that Hainan and Grand China will be merged with Air China; while Beijing Capital Airlines goes to CZ?

The split of the CN3 among PEK and ZBAD also means ST and OW are going to ZBAD (assuming AA is going to ZBAD due to its stated intent to deepen its connectivity with CZ), while Star will stay at PEK. Among OW carriers, I can see CX staying at PEK, given its relationship with CA, and that it doesn't have connectivity with other OW carriers at Beijing. It may eventually flies a few flights to ZBAD, but only after the area (i.e. the new business district south of Beijing) starts to be built up.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Kind of a shame that Chinese carriers wont be able to offer services to both airports from their hubs, say CX flying to both from CAN and URC for instance. So CA gets Beijing's "close-in" airport all to themselves basically.

Not so sure PEK should be considered the "close in" airport. By distance sure, but not by travel time.
Travel time to Daxing airport by the high speed train will be 11 minutes from central Beijing. Travel time to PEK is close to 20 minutes.

777klm wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Kind of a shame that Chinese carriers wont be able to offer services to both airports from their hubs, say CX flying to both from CAN and URC for instance. So CA gets Beijing's "close-in" airport all to themselves basically.

Not so sure PEK should be considered the "close in" airport. By distance sure, but not by travel time.
Travel time to Daxing airport by the high speed train will be 11 minutes from central Beijing. Travel time to PEK is close to 20 minutes.

Thanks for the info. I was under the impression that Daxing travel time was going to be a tad longer than PEK.

One moment. If HU opérate in PEK, and (most of its) subsidiaries (excluding HX, which can operate in both as registered in HK) would operate in ZBAD, how would it affect HU’s marketing strategy?

Macau, Hong Kong and Taiwan airlines will get the same options as foreign carriers. They will not be treated as domestic carriers for purposes of the allocation between PEK and Daxing.

B1168 wrote:

One moment. If HU opérate in PEK, and (most of its) subsidiaries (excluding HX, which can operate in both as registered in HK) would operate in ZBAD, how would it affect HU’s marketing strategy?

I thought JD is up for sale anyway? Plus IIRC HX was going with a stretegy of operating from both airports anyway (and kind of got their wish).

SCQ83 wrote:

I reckon regional carriers like Korean Air, Asiana, ANA or JAL could operate at both airports. After all they do the same in Shanghai (PVG/SHA).

Different situation, though. SHA serves as the "in-city" airport with limited international flight (vs. PVG), while PEK/ZBAD are split b/t airlines instead. OZ and NH are likely staying at PEK due to *A and totally ignore ZBAD. KE may possibly operate a few flights into ZBAD (due to ST presence at ZBAD), as does JL (Due to their codeshare with MU and CZ). Both SEL-BJS and TYO-BJS are more O&D than connection flight, though.

CX is closer to CA (Cross-ownership), so they're likely to just stay in PEK. NX (Air Macau) is majority own by CA, so they're definitely staying at PEK. BR, being in *A, is also highly likely to just stay put at PEK. CI again is a question mark, but maybe due to the ST connection, they're moving to ZBAD (Although to "compete" with BR they may also just stay put at PEK due to the perception that it's "closer").

777klm wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

Kind of a shame that Chinese carriers wont be able to offer services to both airports from their hubs, say CX flying to both from CAN and URC for instance. So CA gets Beijing's "close-in" airport all to themselves basically.

Not so sure PEK should be considered the "close in" airport. By distance sure, but not by travel time.
Travel time to Daxing airport by the high speed train will be 11 minutes from central Beijing. Travel time to PEK is close to 20 minutes.

It actually depends on which part of Beijing you're heading to anyway.

To Beijing Financial Street/Xidan Area, yes, ZBAD is not a bad choice as that area is only about 10 mins from Beijing West Station (Where the HSR train will head to), while PEK being in NE corner is at a little bit of a disadvantage.
To Beijing CBD area, PEK will probably be closer. Both Airport Subway Line takes you to Line 10 in about 20 mins (Sanyuanqiao for PEK, Caoqiao for ZBAD), but it's only 6 stations from Sanyuanqiao to Guomao Stn. (In the middle of Beijing CBD) while it's 12 stations from Caoqiao (One have to loop from the southern leg of Line 10 to the Eastern leg)
To Zhongguancun (The "Tech hub" of Beijing), which is on NW corner of central Beijing, it's fairly close - about 25-30 mins on subway from Beijing West or about 25 mins from Sanyuanqiao (Alternatively, about 45 mins on Subway from Caoqiao).

Ultimately, the further distance for ZBAD is mostly offset by faster railway line. Excluding the HSR, even the New Airport Line (160km/h) will be faster than the current Airport Express (110km/h).

By car, well, of course PEK is closer, but once you get to central Beijing, it's 10km/h max either way .

May have missed this previously, but will airlines at ZBAD be able to operate on international routes operated by those at PEK? For example, can China Eastern start ZBAD-JFK?

jbs2886 wrote:

May have missed this previously, but will airlines at ZBAD be able to operate on international routes operated by those at PEK? For example, can China Eastern start ZBAD-JFK?

I think so, yes, but this is stretching my memory; off the top of my head "competition" will be allowed only on specific trunk routes when certain criteria are met (can't remember what said criteria is)

zakuivcustom wrote:

Different situation, though. SHA serves as the "in-city" airport with limited international flight (vs. PVG), while PEK/ZBAD are split b/t airlines instead. OZ and NH are likely staying at PEK due to *A and totally ignore ZBAD. KE may possibly operate a few flights into ZBAD (due to ST presence at ZBAD), as does JL (Due to their codeshare with MU and CZ).

I don't see how it is that different.

PEK and Daxing and two airports located in the two extremes of a massive urban area. Those Japanese/Korean carriers serving both airports would not be any different than foreign carriers serving both JFK and EWR. Neither of which are "city" airports but are in two extremes of the NYC metro area. So relatively similar layout than Beijing. And each has its own alliance (Star in EWR and ST/OW in JFK; even if in the US it is not obligated by the government ).

Yet carriers like Air China itself, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, TAP Portugal, LOT or British Airways serve both JFK and EWR no matter the alliance they belong to.

I think the question is whether some long-haul Euro/US carrier will fly to both airports. If there is one, I bet it would be Lufthansa from FRA.

If they had a chance, I am sure EK would fly to ZBAD as well as PEK. Currently they fly double-daily (2x A380s usually, sometimes 1x A380 1x 77W) to PEK.
EK flies to 2 airports serving NYC, 3 airports serving LON, 2 in TYO, 2 in IST (IST and SAW), and used to serve CRK alongside MNL.

Can someone please refresh our memory on the future of “one route one carrier” policy here? I think the new rule is route (tier 1, 2, etc) dependent but could be wrong.

SCQ83 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Different situation, though. SHA serves as the "in-city" airport with limited international flight (vs. PVG), while PEK/ZBAD are split b/t airlines instead. OZ and NH are likely staying at PEK due to *A and totally ignore ZBAD. KE may possibly operate a few flights into ZBAD (due to ST presence at ZBAD), as does JL (Due to their codeshare with MU and CZ).

I don't see how it is that different.

PEK and Daxing and two airports located in the two extremes of a massive urban area. Those Japanese/Korean carriers serving both airports would not be any different than foreign carriers serving both JFK and EWR. Neither of which are "city" airports but are in two extremes of the NYC metro area. So relatively similar layout than Beijing. And each has its own alliance (Star in EWR and ST/OW in JFK; even if in the US it is not obligated by the government ).

Yet carriers like Air China itself, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, TAP Portugal, LOT or British Airways serve both JFK and EWR no matter the alliance they belong to.

I think the question is whether some long-haul Euro/US carrier will fly to both airports. If there is one, I bet it would be Lufthansa from FRA.

JFK/EWR vs. PEK/ZBAD is definitely a more fair comparison (compare to SHA/PVG vs. PEK/ZBAD).
1. Carriers flying to SHA also fly to PVG b/c there's a limit on how many flights that an international carrier can fly into SHA. PVG is there to take "extra" traffic that carriers need. The situation at SHA/PVG is more similar to HND/NRT anyway (i.e. SHA like HND is the "city center" airport, while PVG like NRT is in the middle of nowhere but is the main international gateway to a large city. Ok, the only difference, I guess, is that PVG is busier than SHA, while HND is a lot busier than NRT).
2. JFK being the "preferred" airport, much like PEK, even though ZBAD and EWR are not necessarily that much further from the city.
3. EWR is definitely alliance base (mostly *A traffic). It also serves as a reliever airport for anyone that need the extra capacity to/from NYC (i.e. hence why CX and BA fly to EWR also). I can see some airlines (i.e. EK) wanting extra capacity to Beijing to fly to ZBAD also. Otherwise, ST carriers may move everything to ZBAD, or has a few flight staying at PEK just b/c it's "preferred" (i.e. KE, CI, AF/KL), while smaller ST carriers (i.e. VN, GA) are most likely moving everything to ZBAD.
4. AA and DL are both very likely to move everything to ZBAD also, b/c connection matters quite a bit for them, compare to more O&D focus carriers like KE and CI.

Zoedyn wrote:

ZBAD:
1050 during 6:00-01:59
PEK:
1350 during 6:00-01:59

Isn't ZBAD opening with four runways? 1000 flights a days seems awfully low for an airport that could probably handle double that right off the bat (assuming there are airspace changes).

Edit: And isn't PEK getting a fourth arrival runway, too?

SCQ83 wrote:

[...]I think the question is whether some long-haul Euro/US carrier will fly to both airports. If there is one, I bet it would be Lufthansa from FRA.

I agree, something like this is likely to happen. In the end, ZBAD could even become some sort of Beijing‘s KJFK variant for *A with some O/D traffic. And maybe even CA can put their code on such flights..

And the Lufthansa Group is the one that notoriously ignores the rule to concentrate activities at one airport per market. At STO, LON, SAO, MIL, MOW and other places they have activities at seperate airports - especially, if you take into account their cargo and catering facilities.

SCQ83 wrote:

I think the question is whether some long-haul Euro/US carrier will fly to both airports. If there is one, I bet it would be Lufthansa from FRA.

It makes no sense for LH / LX / OS to fly to ZBAD as they will only be able to offer connections via PEK on CA.

One of the main reasons for continuing to fly to JFK is because they are part-owner of T1. Otherwise they might have moved all NYC operations to EWR already.

QuawerAir wrote:

I believe Finnair is extremely happy that there will be plenty of free slots available in Beijing after ZBAD is opened. I wonder if Finnair is going to increase the number of weekly flights to PEK or start operating to Daxing as well. If the planned partnership with CZ materializes, AY could even move to Daxing in the future.

Since AY and CZ are setting up a big code-share agreement and ST / OW carriers will likely move to ZBAD, I expect AY to also move to ZBAD from the beginning.

Kilopond wrote:

And the Lufthansa Group is the one that notoriously ignores the rule to concentrate activities at one airport per market. At STO, LON, SAO, MIL, MOW and other places they have activities at seperate airports - especially, if you take into account their cargo and catering facilities.

LH Group only flies to LHR / LCY + MXP / LIN ... so only 2 “double-activities“.

SCQ83 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Different situation, though. SHA serves as the "in-city" airport with limited international flight (vs. PVG), while PEK/ZBAD are split b/t airlines instead. OZ and NH are likely staying at PEK due to *A and totally ignore ZBAD. KE may possibly operate a few flights into ZBAD (due to ST presence at ZBAD), as does JL (Due to their codeshare with MU and CZ).

I don't see how it is that different.

PEK and Daxing and two airports located in the two extremes of a massive urban area. Those Japanese/Korean carriers serving both airports would not be any different than foreign carriers serving both JFK and EWR. Neither of which are "city" airports but are in two extremes of the NYC metro area. So relatively similar layout than Beijing. And each has its own alliance (Star in EWR and ST/OW in JFK; even if in the US it is not obligated by the government ).

Yet carriers like Air China itself, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, TAP Portugal, LOT or British Airways serve both JFK and EWR no matter the alliance they belong to.

I think the question is whether some long-haul Euro/US carrier will fly to both airports. If there is one, I bet it would be Lufthansa from FRA.

What about Turkish Airlines?

yonikasz wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Different situation, though. SHA serves as the "in-city" airport with limited international flight (vs. PVG), while PEK/ZBAD are split b/t airlines instead. OZ and NH are likely staying at PEK due to *A and totally ignore ZBAD. KE may possibly operate a few flights into ZBAD (due to ST presence at ZBAD), as does JL (Due to their codeshare with MU and CZ).

I don't see how it is that different.

PEK and Daxing and two airports located in the two extremes of a massive urban area. Those Japanese/Korean carriers serving both airports would not be any different than foreign carriers serving both JFK and EWR. Neither of which are "city" airports but are in two extremes of the NYC metro area. So relatively similar layout than Beijing. And each has its own alliance (Star in EWR and ST/OW in JFK; even if in the US it is not obligated by the government ).

Yet carriers like Air China itself, Cathay Pacific, Lufthansa, TAP Portugal, LOT or British Airways serve both JFK and EWR no matter the alliance they belong to.

I think the question is whether some long-haul Euro/US carrier will fly to both airports. If there is one, I bet it would be Lufthansa from FRA.

What about Turkish Airlines?

I would assume it to go to PEK. Either way, CZ has PEK-IST at 3 weekly, and CZ is planned to go to ZBAD, so we have service to IST from both airports, even if TK decline to serve both. After all, TK is a *a member, and is highly unlikely to serve ZBAD exclusively.
A much more interesting question is for the Middle East giants. Where will EK, QR and EY go?

yonikasz wrote:

What about Turkish Airlines?

Most likely staying at PEK. And with MU/CZ moved out, they may actually have additional slots that they can possibly use to add a 2nd daily flight.

cityshuttle wrote:

LH Group only flies to LHR / LCY + MXP / LIN ... so only 2 “double-activities“.

Those two plus EWR/JFK and HND/NRT. But yes, your point stand - LH doesn't just fly to two airports "just because" in general. LCY and LIN targets business pax, HND (and LIN also) is the much more "preferred" airport, while JFK/EWR involved a slightly more "preferred" airport (JFK) and a *A hub (EWR). In Beijing, the slightly more "preferred" airport and *A hub is the same airport (PEK/ZBAA), which means LH has no reason to fly anywhere else.

Plus LH (including cargo) only fly to ARN in Stockholm and DME in Moscow. LH Cargo do fly to VCP, but so does many other cargo carriers.

As other folks have pointed out, PEK and ZBAD are/will be definitely a “six of one and half a dozen of the other” case when it comes to Beijing downtown connectivity, all depending on where you travel to/from due to Beijing’s massive ongoing urban sprawl that has spawned multiple commercial/educational/residential centers. Especially so if we take into account the rapid multi-modal downtown connectivity ZBAD is endowed with upon birth, even though it is twice as far as PEK is from central Beijing

Here a picture is worth a thousand words

Map via 发展北京

Overthecascades wrote:

Can someone please refresh our memory on the future of “one route one carrier” policy here? I think the new rule is route (tier 1, 2, etc) dependent but could be wrong.

Reuters has done a good graphic on the popular trunk routes that are deemed eligible for duplicate service by Chinese airlines in line with CAAC’s ease of “One Route One Carrier” policy effective Oct 1, 2018

Showing Beijing got the following 10 longhaul trunk routes up for grabs for one additional Chinese airline per route(putting aside traffic rights):

8 routes by CA on the Chinese side:
Beijing-Vancouver
Beijing-NYC
Beijing-Los Angeles
Beijing-San Francisco
Beijing-Munich
Beijing-Frankfurt
Beijing-Paris
Beijing-London

1 route by HU:
Beijing-Toronto

1 route by CZ:
Beijing-Amsterdam



More details on the policy relaxation are available in another thread CAAC rolls out game-changing policies abandoning “One Route One Carrier” restriction in a gradual manner (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1394075)

zakuivcustom wrote:

Those two plus EWR/JFK and HND/NRT. But yes, your point stand - LH doesn't just fly to two airports "just because" in general. LCY and LIN targets business pax, HND (and LIN also) is the much more "preferred" airport, while JFK/EWR involved a slightly more "preferred" airport (JFK) and a *A hub (EWR). In Beijing, the slightly more "preferred" airport and *A hub is the same airport (PEK/ZBAA), which means LH has no reason to fly anywhere else.

Plus LH (including cargo) only fly to ARN in Stockholm and DME in Moscow. LH Cargo do fly to VCP, but so does many other cargo carriers.

Let's see. Maybe it makes more sense for AFKL to keep the AMS/CDG-PEK route doubling the new routes at Daxing.

But again I wouldn't be surprised LH tries the new airport. After all it is a massive market and LH has a large presence in China. Maybe they just give it a try to see whether it sticks, and if it doesn't, they might move everything back to PEK.

Regarding Moscow, Lufthansa tried a few years ago flights to VKO (in addition to DME). So at some point it probably didn't make sense for them to double airports in Moscow and returned to the 1-airport.

Blerg wrote:

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

I think this has a great deal to do with the Chinese government’s positioning of the two airports as both international hubs

Previously, the Chinese were reported to have used slot congestion as their validity ( or rather pretext?) for blocking/reducing foreign entry on the coveted BJS market (ask AA how they got to fly LAX-PEK)

Now with the opening of ZBAD to relieve pressure off PEK with abundantly more slots available at either airport, Chinese carriers may well face the immediate embarrassment and dilemma of having insufficient traffic rights for international expansion, esp on longhauls, such as Zone-1 China-US, China-Canada, China-Germany, hence hampering Chinese efforts to develop ZBAD into an international aviation hub

So, by allowing foreign airlines perfect freedom to choose which airport(s) to operate at, the Chinese aviation authorities are effectively encouraging them to open more service to Beijing (preferably to ZBAD) if they can, via a fuller use of traffic rights available in the foreign hands

To that end, CAAC also has a plan to award foreign carriers if they choose to relocate to ZBAD and quick enough in the form of granting them access to the new airport’s slots in both quality and quantity

SCQ83 wrote:

I reckon regional carriers like Korean Air, Asiana, ANA or JAL could operate at both airports. After all they do the same in Shanghai (PVG/SHA).

Totally agree, given the geographical proximity and close bilateral exchange of ppl btwn the countries

QuawerAir wrote:

I believe Finnair is extremely happy that there will be plenty of free slots available in Beijing after ZBAD is opened. I wonder if Finnair is going to increase the number of weekly flights to PEK or start operating to Daxing as well. If the planned partnership with CZ materializes, AY could even move to Daxing in the future.

If AY hasn't maxed the traffic rights on the Finnish side, ZBAD surely presents a gold opportunity for its further China expansion it absolutely shouldn't miss while keeping its existing PEK flights

But I suspect current limited Finland-China bilateral is THE obstacle on AY's way. I recall AY seems to have no further traffic rights to top-tier cities like Beijing and Shanghai

jetblastdubai wrote:

Just an observation based on many comments on a-net over the years as well as published information from generally reliable sources: Can China (civilian) ATC accommodate these planned additional flights and still deliver an acceptable on-time product or will a large, second airport in PEK simply tank a system that appears to be very near capacity currently?

What you raised is perfectly legitimate concerns

Actually CAAC disclosed in the document that they would TRY to get PEK/ZBAD to reach 80% in on-time performance. Just 80%! Certainly far from satisfactory by international standards

No doubt the Chinese airline/airport industry really can't do much in that regard unless the military releases substantially more airspace for civilian use, sth that unfortunately falls into the realm of utter impossibility given the way the whole system works

More detailed info on two key metrics regarding PEK/ZBAD split as planned by CAAC in the recently released document (http://www.caac.gov.cn/XXGK/XXGK/ZFGW/2 ... 032617.pdf)

Slots allocation for PEK/ZBAD during transitional period from winter 2019 to winter 2021


Showing that during the transitional period of 5 scheduled seasons from 2019 to 2021, PEK would see its daily slots gradually decrease before rising again, while ZBAD's slots would increase steadily

Planned annual pax traffic for PEK/ZBAD from 2019 to 2025


In consistency with the slots allocation in the first graph above, PEK's annual pax numbers would hit a nadir at approx 67 million in 2021 before climbing again, while ZBAD would grow its pax numbers year by year

With this degree of rigorous macrocontrol at slots supply in precision, it's hard not to believe the above plans won't come to fruition

cityshuttle wrote:

LH Group only flies to LHR / LCY

+STN (by EW)

jbs2886 wrote:

May have missed this previously, but will airlines at ZBAD be able to operate on international routes operated by those at PEK? For example, can China Eastern start ZBAD-JFK?

Definitely they can and will, esp international routes to countries/regions where Chinese carriers are free of traffic rights concerns

However, regarding intercontinental longhauls like ZBAD-JFK you mentioned, the biggest worry is the desperate lack of traffic rights for Chinese carriers, as existing traffic rights have mostly been used up on the Chinese side already, though CAAC does encourage airlines based at ZBAD to actively open international service. So, we won’t see MU (or CZ) open ZBAD-JFK (or ZBAD-any US city) now until China-US bilateral agreement gets expanded one day, which seems unlikely to happen in the near future

But toward European countries like UK/France with which China has just significantly expanded bilaterals in recent years, Daxing-based carriers, esp hub carriers like CZ/MU, do have real opportunities to open ZBAD-LON/PAR/NCE etc

leader1 wrote:

Isn't ZBAD opening with four runways? 1000 flights a days seems awfully low for an airport that could probably handle double that right off the bat (assuming there are airspace changes).

Edit: And isn't PEK getting a fourth arrival runway, too?

Agree

There’s indeed a fourth rwy plan for PEK, but there isn’t any timetable for it yet (See: CA looking to expand PEK with 4th runway in a bid to develop global super-hub
viewtopic.php?t=1399947)

Then of course there's the issue of getting slots to operate trunk routes at the European end.. new entrants at ZBAD may well struggle for slots on eg ZBAD-LON

I think China Southern will launch London Heathrow to Beijing Daxing from the start of W18 on a daily frequency with a B787-8, the same aircraft which operates daily Guangzhou to London Heathrow. There are a number of evening slots which Chinese carriers have been able to obtain over the last 18 months, and I think they will go for this sort of timing which is similar to their current Guangzhou operation, as well as Air China's flights between London and Beijing.

China Southern have applied for new Tuesday/Saturday slots at London Heathrow arriving 1745 and departing 2110 but have not been accepted as yet - with the proposed destination looking to be Zhengzhou. If they get the slots, and are struggling for a daily Beijing flight, I think they will use these timings to launch daily to Beijing as it will attract to more business passengers then Wuhan/Sanya/Zhengzhou would.

During S20, I wouldn't be surprised to see the A380 launch this route - in order to capacity compete against Air China who have recently been accepted to launch 3 daily flights at Heathrow to Beijing from March 2019

SeanM1997 wrote:

I think China Southern will launch London Heathrow to Beijing Daxing from the start of W18 on a daily frequency with a B787-8, the same aircraft which operates daily Guangzhou to London Heathrow. There are a number of evening slots which Chinese carriers have been able to obtain over the last 18 months, and I think they will go for this sort of timing which is similar to their current Guangzhou operation, as well as Air China's flights between London and Beijing.

China Southern have applied for new Tuesday/Saturday slots at London Heathrow arriving 1745 and departing 2110 but have not been accepted as yet - with the proposed destination looking to be Zhengzhou. If they get the slots, and are struggling for a daily Beijing flight, I think they will use these timings to launch daily to Beijing as it will attract to more business passengers then Wuhan/Sanya/Zhengzhou would.

During S20, I wouldn't be surprised to see the A380 launch this route - in order to capacity compete against Air China who have recently been accepted to launch 3 daily flights at Heathrow to Beijing from March 2019

I thought they were restoring the original CZ603/4(former 2nd daily CAN-LHR)! I would really welcome an overnight westbound flight for CAN-LHR to make use of access to the Americas... however, that piece of slot information does match CZ’s service time in LHR and does sound like an O&D based flight to a 2nd tier Chinese city. Should they start LHR (by somehow creating extra market from these saturated routes), it will be great for them to seize the third long haul from ZBAD. Though... we should anticipate fierce competition with CA.

FlyingHollander wrote:

Why are the splitting Hainan and its subsidiaries?

Only Beijing Capital is split out.

OzarkD9S wrote:

Kind of a shame that Chinese carriers wont be able to offer services to both airports from their hubs, say CX flying to both from CAN and URC for instance. So CA gets Beijing's "close-in" airport all to themselves basically.

Neither airport is close in. They are both about the same distance to downtown.

Zoedyn wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

I think this has a great deal to do with the Chinese government’s positioning of the two airports as both international hubs

Previously, the Chinese were reported to have used slot congestion as their validity ( or rather pretext?) for blocking/reducing foreign entry on the coveted BJS market (ask AA how they got to fly LAX-PEK)

Now with the opening of ZBAD to relieve pressure off PEK with abundantly more slots available at either airport, Chinese carriers may well face the immediate embarrassment and dilemma of having insufficient traffic rights for international expansion, esp on longhauls, such as Zone-1 China-US, China-Canada, China-Germany, hence hampering Chinese efforts to develop ZBAD into an international aviation hub

So, by allowing foreign airlines perfect freedom to choose which airport(s) to operate at, the Chinese aviation authorities are effectively encouraging them to open more service to Beijing (preferably to ZBAD) if they can, via a fuller use of traffic rights available in the foreign hands

To that end, CAAC also has a plan to award foreign carriers if they choose to relocate to ZBAD and quick enough in the form of granting them access to the new airport’s slots in both quality and quantity

SCQ83 wrote:

I reckon regional carriers like Korean Air, Asiana, ANA or JAL could operate at both airports. After all they do the same in Shanghai (PVG/SHA).

Totally agree, given the geographical proximity and close bilateral exchange of ppl btwn the countries

QuawerAir wrote:

I believe Finnair is extremely happy that there will be plenty of free slots available in Beijing after ZBAD is opened. I wonder if Finnair is going to increase the number of weekly flights to PEK or start operating to Daxing as well. If the planned partnership with CZ materializes, AY could even move to Daxing in the future.

If AY hasn't maxed the traffic rights on the Finnish side, ZBAD surely presents a gold opportunity for its further China expansion it absolutely shouldn't miss while keeping its existing PEK flights

But I suspect current limited Finland-China bilateral is THE obstacle on AY's way. I recall AY seems to have no further traffic rights to top-tier cities like Beijing and Shanghai

jetblastdubai wrote:

Just an observation based on many comments on a-net over the years as well as published information from generally reliable sources: Can China (civilian) ATC accommodate these planned additional flights and still deliver an acceptable on-time product or will a large, second airport in PEK simply tank a system that appears to be very near capacity currently?

What you raised is perfectly legitimate concerns

Actually CAAC disclosed in the document that they would TRY to get PEK/ZBAD to reach 80% in on-time performance. Just 80%! Certainly far from satisfactory by international standards

No doubt the Chinese airline/airport industry really can't do much in that regard unless the military releases substantially more airspace for civilian use, sth that unfortunately falls into the realm of utter impossibility given the way the whole system works

As thses are the codes for Beijing Airport "IATA: PEK ICAO: ZBAA WMO: 54511" where do you get the "BJS" from. After all there are already enough codes for each, please don't start another.

Zoedyn wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

I think this has a great deal to do with the Chinese government’s positioning of the two airports as both international hubs

Previously, the Chinese were reported to have used slot congestion as their validity ( or rather pretext?) for blocking/reducing foreign entry on the coveted BJS market (ask AA how they got to fly LAX-PEK)

Now with the opening of ZBAD to relieve pressure off PEK with abundantly more slots available at either airport, Chinese carriers may well face the immediate embarrassment and dilemma of having insufficient traffic rights for international expansion, esp on longhauls, such as Zone-1 China-US, China-Canada, China-Germany, hence hampering Chinese efforts to develop ZBAD into an international aviation hub

So, by allowing foreign airlines perfect freedom to choose which airport(s) to operate at, the Chinese aviation authorities are effectively encouraging them to open more service to Beijing (preferably to ZBAD) if they can, via a fuller use of traffic rights available in the foreign hands

To that end, CAAC also has a plan to award foreign carriers if they choose to relocate to ZBAD and quick enough in the form of granting them access to the new airport’s slots in both quality and quantity

SCQ83 wrote:

I reckon regional carriers like Korean Air, Asiana, ANA or JAL could operate at both airports. After all they do the same in Shanghai (PVG/SHA).

Totally agree, given the geographical proximity and close bilateral exchange of ppl btwn the countries

QuawerAir wrote:

I believe Finnair is extremely happy that there will be plenty of free slots available in Beijing after ZBAD is opened. I wonder if Finnair is going to increase the number of weekly flights to PEK or start operating to Daxing as well. If the planned partnership with CZ materializes, AY could even move to Daxing in the future.

If AY hasn't maxed the traffic rights on the Finnish side, ZBAD surely presents a gold opportunity for its further China expansion it absolutely shouldn't miss while keeping its existing PEK flights

But I suspect current limited Finland-China bilateral is THE obstacle on AY's way. I recall AY seems to have no further traffic rights to top-tier cities like Beijing and Shanghai

jetblastdubai wrote:

Just an observation based on many comments on a-net over the years as well as published information from generally reliable sources: Can China (civilian) ATC accommodate these planned additional flights and still deliver an acceptable on-time product or will a large, second airport in PEK simply tank a system that appears to be very near capacity currently?

What you raised is perfectly legitimate concerns

Actually CAAC disclosed in the document that they would TRY to get PEK/ZBAD to reach 80% in on-time performance. Just 80%! Certainly far from satisfactory by international standards

No doubt the Chinese airline/airport industry really can't do much in that regard unless the military releases substantially more airspace for civilian use, sth that unfortunately falls into the realm of utter impossibility given the way the whole system works

As these are the codes for Beijing Airport "IATA: PEK ICAO: ZBAA WMO: 54511" where do you get the "BJS" from. After all there are already enough codes for each, please don't start another.

Ziyulu wrote:

Would CX and KA face the same restrictions as the Chinese carriers?

CX is technically considered a China airline now, so no they cannot serve both. But Korean is a foreign carrier, so yes.

rbavfan wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Would CX and KA face the same restrictions as the Chinese carriers?

CX is technically considered a China airline now, so no they cannot. But Korean is a foreign carrier, so yes.

Again, it was specified explicitly that airlines from HK, Macau, and Taiwan does NOT face the same restriction.

BTW, KA = Cathay Dragon (Formerly Dragonair), not Korean Air (That would be KE).

rbavfan wrote:

As these are the codes for Beijing Airport "IATA: PEK ICAO: ZBAA WMO: 54511" where do you get the "BJS" from. After all there are already enough codes for each, please don't start another.

BJS is the city code for Beijing, similar to TYO for Tokyo, SEL for Seoul, LON for London, PAR for Paris, etc. (There are a few other). BJS currently include both PEK/ZBAA (Beijing Capital Airport) and the much smaller NAY/ZBNY (Beijing Nanyuan Airport, which is only served by China United Airlines, whom itself was the civilian arm of PLA military transport before they were sold to FM/Shanghai Airlines, and now is a LCC that's under the umbrella of China Eastern Group). After Daxing Airport opens, BJS will include PEK and ZBAD, since Nanyuan will close after that.

mrwhistler wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

Only one that I can think of that might be interested is CX. They run enough flights that it might be worth running a couple of peak hour flights to both airports.

CX=Hong Kong=China so they cannot serve both as Chinese carriers are limited to 1 of the airports only.

rbavfan wrote:

mrwhistler wrote:

Blerg wrote:

Interesting that foreign airlines are allowed to operate at both. Which airlines could do that? I can't think of many... maybe that's why they are allowing it?

Only one that I can think of that might be interested is CX. They run enough flights that it might be worth running a couple of peak hour flights to both airports.

CX=Hong Kong=China so they cannot serve both as Chinese carriers are limited to 1 of the airports only.

No...NO...NOOO...

1. HK =/= China, especially when it comes to aviation. Separate aviation authority, separate traffic control, separate airspace.
1a. The separate airspace applied especially for flight to/from Taiwan. For years you can't fly directly between Taiwan airspace and PRC airspace, all flights has to either detour through HK airspace, or go north to S. Korean/Japanese airspace.
1b. It's also how CX benefits for so many years as the "go between" carrier from Taiwan to mainland (HKG-TPE was known as "golden route" b/c it prints money, and even now it's still a fairly profitable route with tons of flight), until they open up the cross-strait flights.
2. Any HK base airlines are treated similarly like "International" in mainland PRC (Usually it's call "International and Kongaotai Flights", i.e. Int'l flights and flights to Hong Kong, Macau (Aomen), and Taiwan).
2a. You need permit to enter PRC as someone from HK (and Macau and Taiwan). Hack, mainland can even denied entry to people they don't like (Mostly pro-Democracy activist, including pro-HK Independence activists or pro-Taiwan independence activist), in another word, definitely anything BUT domestic.
2b. Something on the side, but HK can (and had) denied entry for some Taiwanese, or Macau had denied entry for a few pro-Democracy activists from HK also. In another word, when it comes to immigration it's "Two coast, Four Places".
2c. And no, HK just don't let anyone from mainland enter and live (or work) there, either. For that matter, not all mainland PRC citizens can just go to HK (or Macau or Taiwan) either as individual (i.e. some has to follow tour group still).
3. As I've already said, and repeated a few times, the document EXPLICITLY stated that airlines from HK/Macau/Taiwan are not subject to any restrictions. (Seriously, stop repeating false information).

zakuivcustom wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Ziyulu wrote:

Would CX and KA face the same restrictions as the Chinese carriers?

CX is technically considered a China airline now, so no they cannot. But Korean is a foreign carrier, so yes.

Again, it was specified explicitly that airlines from HK, Macau, and Taiwan does NOT face the same restriction.

BTW, KA = Cathay Dragon (Formerly Dragonair), not Korean Air (That would be KE).

rbavfan wrote:

As these are the codes for Beijing Airport "IATA: PEK ICAO: ZBAA WMO: 54511" where do you get the "BJS" from. After all there are already enough codes for each, please don't start another.

BJS is the city code for Beijing, similar to TYO for Tokyo, SEL for Seoul, LON for London, PAR for Paris, etc. (There are a few other). BJS currently include both PEK/ZBAA (Beijing Capital Airport) and the much smaller NAY/ZBNY (Beijing Nanyuan Airport, which is only served by China United Airlines, whom itself was the civilian arm of PLA military transport before they were sold to FM/Shanghai Airlines, and now is a LCC that's under the umbrella of China Eastern Group). After Daxing Airport opens, BJS will include PEK and ZBAD, since Nanyuan will close after that.

KA/KE bad me. But I did a search for BJS online and it did not show any official use of that code.

rbavfan wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

CX is technically considered a China airline now, so no they cannot. But Korean is a foreign carrier, so yes.

Again, it was specified explicitly that airlines from HK, Macau, and Taiwan does NOT face the same restriction.

BTW, KA = Cathay Dragon (Formerly Dragonair), not Korean Air (That would be KE).

rbavfan wrote:

As these are the codes for Beijing Airport "IATA: PEK ICAO: ZBAA WMO: 54511" where do you get the "BJS" from. After all there are already enough codes for each, please don't start another.

BJS is the city code for Beijing, similar to TYO for Tokyo, SEL for Seoul, LON for London, PAR for Paris, etc. (There are a few other). BJS currently include both PEK/ZBAA (Beijing Capital Airport) and the much smaller NAY/ZBNY (Beijing Nanyuan Airport, which is only served by China United Airlines, whom itself was the civilian arm of PLA military transport before they were sold to FM/Shanghai Airlines, and now is a LCC that's under the umbrella of China Eastern Group). After Daxing Airport opens, BJS will include PEK and ZBAD, since Nanyuan will close after that.

KA/KE bad me. But I did a search for BJS online and it did not show any official use of that code.

https://www.iata.org/publications/Pages ... earch.aspx

1. Select "Location Code"
2. Type in BJS
3. Voila, Beijing shows up (as "metropolitan area")

Sorry what airline is "CN"?

Samrnpage wrote:

Sorry what airline is "CN"?

Grand China Air

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_China_Air