CX Reduces Service To JFK, LAX And YYZ

cx828 · Thu May 17, 2012 1:55 pm

According to the CX world issue, paragraph of "Flexibility key as capacity adjustments are made" you can see that "It will also deploy more fuel efficient 777-300ERs on longhaul flights to destinations ......... the team wanted to get the 747s off long-haul routes as much as possible .......... “That’s why we’re robbing North America of some 777s and putting them on Europe" They plan to partially cut JFK 845/846, LAX 884/885 and completely 828/825 after September

http://downloads.cathaypacific.com/cx/press/cxw/pdf/CXW194.pdf

sw733 · Thu May 17, 2012 2:03 pm

Wow. JFK doesn't necessarily surprise me, as it seems like they were adding a new frequency every other day, which is a bit crazy on a 15-16 hour flight! I assume the start of ORD doesn't help JFK either.

However, the cutback for LAX is a bit surprising to me.

COEWRNJ · Thu May 17, 2012 2:07 pm

Does CX still plan on flying to EWR?

CX Flyboy · Thu May 17, 2012 2:56 pm

Quoting SW733 (Reply 1):
However, the cutback for LAX is a bit surprising to me.

CX only fairly recently went daily on the CX884/885, so I assume it will be cut back to its previous frequency.

Quoting COEWRNJ (Reply 2):
Does CX still plan on flying to EWR?

EWR is on the backburner for the time being.

HKG212 · Thu May 17, 2012 3:10 pm

Where do you see the information about route cuts?

Quoting cx828 (Thread starter):
They plan to partially cut JFK 845/846, LAX 884/885 and completely 828/825 after September

Where is that information from?

sq_ek_freak · Thu May 17, 2012 3:37 pm

Quoting cx828 (Thread starter):
and completely 828/825

So YYZ is getting axed completely?

I mean lets put this in context, even with these cuts, CX still has one of the (if not the) strongest presences in North America amongst the big Asian carriers.

dirtyfrankd · Thu May 17, 2012 3:47 pm

Seems like a good opportunity for AA to launch a flight to HKG from one of those cities?

cx828 · Thu May 17, 2012 3:47 pm

YYZ has double daily originally, start from May 1, only 10 weekly, starting from Sep 16, only daily left.

hoons90 · Thu May 17, 2012 3:50 pm

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 5):
So YYZ is getting axed completely?

Nope, CX826/829 will continue to operate on a daily basis with the 77W. Evening arrival (around 8pm) and early morning (around 1:30am) departure out of YYZ.

The flight getting cut is the one that arrives in the early afternoon and departs around 3pm.

EddieDude · Thu May 17, 2012 4:51 pm

Quoting IrishAyes (Reply 9):
-Go from 21 to 18 weekly on JFKHKG

Of these 18, 7 are via YVR, right? Is JFK an all-77W route now?

mogandoCI · Thu May 17, 2012 5:01 pm

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 10):
Of these 18, 7 are via YVR, right? Is JFK an all-77W route now?

It was originally 3x daily nonstop + 1x daily JFK-YVR-HKG, so i think the 21->18 only refers to the nonstop.

B6JFKH81 · Thu May 17, 2012 5:01 pm

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 10):
Is JFK an all-77W route now?

Yes, has been for quite some time now. I miss seeing the CX A346 here at JFK though!!!

ORDJOE · Thu May 17, 2012 6:08 pm

They had been adding so many flights to JFK over the past few years, too bad they are taking away the YYZ one, I poped my international F cherry on that one a year back. Where are these 747s that are leaving europe going then, are they going to add capacity to their asian network with them or send them to the desert.

yegbey01 · Thu May 17, 2012 8:37 pm

How will this capacity be replaced?

Last November, I flew YYZ-HKG (F) and then HKG-YVR-JFK (J). Every seat was filled. and I am sure Y was just as full.

ZaphodB · Thu May 17, 2012 10:47 pm

Not surprised given the ease of getting J award seats ex-JFK ... I'm taking advantage of that myself 2 weeks from now.

CX Flyboy · Thu May 17, 2012 11:29 pm

Quoting ordjoe (Reply 12):
Where are these 747s that are leaving europe going then, are they going to add capacity to their asian network with them or send them to the desert.

They will mostly if not all end up with the scrapman. Three 744s will be retired this autumn, five next year and depending on the state of the economy, another 3-4 the year after that. In the meantime they will be deployed regionally where the shorthaul flights mean that not as much fuel is burned/wasted.

Quoting yegbey01 (Reply 13):
How will this capacity be replaced?

Last November, I flew YYZ-HKG (F) and then HKG-YVR-JFK (J). Every seat was filled. and I am sure Y was just as full.

Our loads are pretty high everywhere at the moment but ticket prices are not high enough to even cover the fuel costs, especially to Europe on the 744. There has been talk of cutting back YYZ for some time now. JFK does ok but not good enough to cover the loss-making 744 routes to Europe. Fact is, that the 77Ws are needed off those North American flights to put to Europe asap. Once more 77Ws come and the economy picks up a bit, those frequencies will be restored.

as739x · Thu May 17, 2012 11:48 pm

What are the plans for SFO? Being the last N. American destination with 2 daily 744's, will they go to 2 daily 77W or look into adding a 3rd flight say 4 weekly down the road?

CX Flyboy · Fri May 18, 2012 12:54 am

Quoting as739x (Reply 16):
What are the plans for SFO? Being the last N. American destination with 2 daily 744's, will they go to 2 daily 77W or look into adding a 3rd flight say 4 weekly down the road?

Becomes 1x 744 and 1x 77W daily starting July 1st. Not sure when it will become double daily 77Ws though. Priority now is to get the 744s off Europe where the yields are low.

hoons90 · Fri May 18, 2012 12:59 am

I wonder if it would have helped if CX had ordered their 77Ws a bit earlier, like EK, AF, JL, NH or BR.

as739x · Fri May 18, 2012 1:05 am

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 17):

Thanks Flyboy

aviateur · Fri May 18, 2012 1:39 am

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 5):
I mean lets put this in context, even with these cuts, CX still has one of the (if not the) strongest presences in North America amongst the big Asian carriers.

I'd give that to Korean Air.

CX Flyboy · Fri May 18, 2012 1:40 am

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 18):
I wonder if it would have helped if CX had ordered their 77Ws a bit earlier, like EK, AF, JL, NH or BR.

When CX ordered their 77Ws is was a record breaking order for us. CX have always been conservative and the original plan when the 77Ws were ordered was for them to be replacements for the 744s. The last of the 744s should have left this year under the plan of several years ago. The economy however kept doing so well that the 77Ws were used to expand the network instead of replacing the 744s. Now the economy is turning for Cx and the fuel price is sky high so it is time for the 744 to leave but the 77Ws were already used to expand the network a lot so they are struggling in terms of not having enough planes. In hindsight obviously it would have been better to order more 777s but they had no idea the 744s would be staying for so long.

Thats the thing about aviation, it is hard to come up with a long term plan when in the short term things change so much!

cx828 · Fri May 18, 2012 3:04 am

SO they are on the dilemma of cutting the 77w or allow the 747 to continue to fly. It seems that the revenue from JFK 845/846 is not enough to cover the loss from any of the European destination. So now from JFK, LAX and YYZ they can free up three more 77W with 28 in total. They will receive another 77W this year and total of 29. JFK use 6, LAX 5, ORD 2, YYZ 2, YVR 2, SFO 2, and the proposed EWR 2, already 21 in total so only 8 left for European route, MXP 2, LHR seems using 3 for 1.5 daily using 77W, so three more left, really shortage of planes. They seem to use A340 to LHR, CDG and AMS, just curious they suddenly have so much A340 or they pull the three A340 from dessert back again??

CX Flyboy · Fri May 18, 2012 3:37 am

We still have 11 A340s. The ones that were stored were leased and returned to the leasing company a while ago. They are now flying for Sri Lankan and Aerolineas Argentinas.

We do have a few 77Ws that fly around the region every day. The company is rearranging schedules to get these planes off regional flying and send them longhaul which is there they are supposed to be. I am not sure if the A340s will start to do more longhaul once again as they are hardly doing any longhaul flying at the moment.

N62NA · Fri May 18, 2012 3:55 am

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 3):

EWR is on the backburner for the time being.

I'll be shocked if EWR ever is served by CX.

flythere · Fri May 18, 2012 5:06 am

Quoting ordjoe (Reply 12):
too bad they are taking away the YYZ one, I poped my international F cherry on that one a year back. Where are these 747s that are leaving europe going then, are they going to add capacity to their asian network with them or send them to the desert.

Not really. YYZ frequency is only down from 10 to 7 weekly. The route is still there.

Quoting HOONS90 (Reply 18):
I wonder if it would have helped if CX had ordered their 77Ws a bit earlier, like EK, AF, JL, NH or BR.

I assume it would be if it is the case. But CX has been quite conservative in picking the right aircraft to invest in, so it waited until actual running data of 77W come in then CX ordered dozens of it.

Quoting aviateur (Reply 20):
I'd give that to Korean Air.

destination-wise yes. but capacity-wise (ie. ASK or seats per week) KE trails by far.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 21):
The last of the 744s should have left this year under the plan of several years ago. The economy however kept doing so well that the 77Ws were used to expand the network instead of replacing the 744s.

Yes, well said. 744 are real money makers during econ thrive times. That said, nothing better than a fleet of 77W.

Quoting cx828 (Reply 22):
They seem to use A340 to LHR, CDG and AMS, just curious they suddenly have so much A340 or they pull the three A340 from dessert back again??

Actually one of CDG schedule is switching into 77W service as well. Those A340 are taken away from regional runs.

Quoting N62NA (Reply 24):
I'll be shocked if EWR ever is served by CX.

It is indeed on track for CX, no joke.

CX Flyboy · Fri May 18, 2012 7:14 am

Quoting flythere (Reply 25):
Quoting N62NA (Reply 24):
I'll be shocked if EWR ever is served by CX.

It is indeed on track for CX, no joke.

At one stage we were deciding on a crew hotel for the EWR crew, so it was close to happening before they pulled the plug when the economy didn't really improve and the fuel prices kept rising.

cx828 · Fri May 18, 2012 8:21 am

So actually New York doesn't decrease the frequency, instead is an increase. From 4 JFK to 3.5 JFK and 1 EWR.

trex8 · Fri May 18, 2012 10:21 am

If a 744 loses money, a 77W burns about 25% less than a 744 and a 748 is supposed to be getting 10%+ better than a 77W, no wonder no one wants a 748!

workhorse · Fri May 18, 2012 11:34 am

Quoting cx828 (Reply 22):
They seem to use A340 to LHR, CDG and AMS, just curious they suddenly have so much A340 or they pull the three A340 from dessert back again??

Quoting flythere (Reply 25):
Actually one of CDG schedule is switching into 77W service as well. Those A340 are taken away from regional runs.

Actually, unfortunately (for me) they pulled the 340 out of CDG some time ago. Before, we had the "main" 747 service leaving CDG at 2pm and arriving to HKG early in the morning (7am), and we also had a 343 leaving around midnight and arriving to HKG in the evening (5pm). I used to love that one!

The mid-day 747 is still there, but, instead of the evening 343 we now have another 747 which is in fact a tag-on from AMS, it leaves 2 hours before the non-stop one and arrives to HKG at exactly the same time (7am) and does not make sense at all! I never understood why they did this.

[Edited 2012-05-18 04:36:28]

iahflyer · Fri May 18, 2012 1:40 pm

Does the YVR-JFK flight pre-clear customs in Vancouver?

yegbey01 · Fri May 18, 2012 2:07 pm

Quoting iahflyer (Reply 30):
Does the YVR-JFK flight pre-clear customs in Vancouver?

NO. All pax get off the plane and are held in a transit area for about 60 minutes

sq_ek_freak · Fri May 18, 2012 2:49 pm

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 15):
Our loads are pretty high everywhere at the moment but ticket prices are not high enough to even cover the fuel costs, especially to Europe on the 744. There has been talk of cutting back YYZ for some time now. JFK does ok but not good enough to cover the loss-making 744 routes to Europe. Fact is, that the 77Ws are needed off those North American flights to put to Europe asap. Once more 77Ws come and the economy picks up a bit, those frequencies will be restored.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 17):

Becomes 1x 744 and 1x 77W daily starting July 1st. Not sure when it will become double daily 77Ws though. Priority now is to get the 744s off Europe where the yields are low.

Thanks for your great insightful posts. Are the operational costs of the 744 so prohibitive that even swapping a few North American routes where the yields seem better for CX to 744's and putting the freed up 77Ws on the European routes that are struggling wouldn't help? Obviously easier said and done, and I can't imagine the operational task of reshuffling an entire long haul fleet - but it is kind of striking to me that CX is doing so poorly in Europe with the 744.

Quoting flythere (Reply 25):
destination-wise yes. but capacity-wise (ie. ASK or seats per week) KE trails by far.

Does CX overtake KE in this case? No to steer too far off topic, but who takes the cake capacity wise amongst the Asian carriers?

ZK-NBT · Fri May 18, 2012 9:44 pm

Quoting cx828 (Reply 27):
So actually New York doesn't decrease the frequency, instead is an increase. From 4 JFK to 3.5 JFK and 1 EWR.

Where did you get that, read below again.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 26):
At one stage we were deciding on a crew hotel for the EWR crew, so it was close to happening before they pulled the plug when the economy didn't really improve and the fuel prices kept rising.

Quoting workhorse (Reply 29):
The mid-day 747 is still there, but, instead of the evening 343 we now have another 747 which is in fact a tag-on from AMS, it leaves 2 hours before the non-stop one and arrives to HKG at exactly the same time (7am) and does not make sense at all! I never understood why they did this

Capacity I think just to give CDG a few more seats.

CDG is showing as 2 daily non stop serivce with the A340 operating the second flight from late October, both overnight ex HKG acciving CDG in the morning which seems a little odd but probably because the 77W has 100 less seats than the 744 maybe. The A343 will leave CDG at 2000 arriving HKG at 1500.

I see AKL is showing as double daily A343 for NW 12/13 usually 744s are used for a few months on one flight, though I'm picking this may not happen this year. The second flight has been dropped altogether for NS this year where it usually ops 3x weekly with A343s.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 23):
I am not sure if the A340s will start to do more longhaul once again as they are hardly doing any longhaul flying at the moment.

They only really do long haul atm to
AKL daily
FCO daily
JNB daily
DME 3 weekly

There isn't to many others and even if that was all they only need probably 6-7 frames. Currently showing for NW 12/13

AKL 14 weekly
AMS 4 weekly
LHR 7 weekly
CDG 7 weekly
FCO 7 weekly
DME 3 weekly

There maybe changes to come still but that would use about 10 frames plus there maybe the odd Australia run along with some Asia flying.

CX Flyboy · Sat May 19, 2012 1:56 am

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 32):
North American routes where the yields seem better for CX to 744's and putting the freed up 77Ws on the European routes that are struggling wouldn't help?

North America was a priority to get the 744s off when the 77Ws started to be delivered a few years ago. This has almost completely happened now and starting July 1st, the 744 will only do a single SFO daily flight. The longer the flight, the more disparity there is between the 744 and 77W in terms of fuel costs and since N. America represents the longest flights for CX, the 744 left there first. Now that Europe is not doing too well, it is unlikely that the 744s will be placed back to N. America and instead flights are simply being cut. Its a matter of making less money in N. America in order to cut losses to Europe by redeploying 77Ws.

Rumours are the last 744 leaving now in 2015, 3 years from now. That is pretty ambitious given nearly 1000 flight crew need to be retrained to fly other aircraft types. It is all going to be a juggle of compromises...flying less efficient aircraft vs not enough aircraft in the fleet vs having flight crew from the 744 doing nothing. How the economy and fuel prices go over the next few months and years is obviously going to have a big effect on plans which will probably change every few months in reaction to yields and costs. If there is one thing that is constant at an airline like Cathay, it is that plans are always changing from month to month!

RyanairGuru · Sat May 19, 2012 3:03 am

Quoting ZK-NBT (Reply 33):

There maybe changes to come still but that would use about 10 frames plus there maybe the odd Australia run along with some Asia flying.

During December/January they often send them to Australia for a capacity bump over the 330. To use BNE as an example, CX155/156 went 340 over the last NW. However I've noticed that those flights often aren't listed as a 340 until much later in the year.

Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 32):
re the operational costs of the 744 so prohibitive that even swapping a few North American routes where the yields seem better for CX to 744's and putting the freed up 77Ws on the European routes that are struggling wouldn't help?

I was wondering the same thing. If North American yields are higher why not do a straight one-for-one swap 77W-744. I'm not sure if they could make JFK non-stop but routes such as HKG-LAX and HKG-YVR-JFK would definitely be doable. Are the 744's costs so prohibitive that they would even make these routes unprofitable?

jakob77 · Sat May 19, 2012 4:25 am

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 35):
I was wondering the same thing. If North American yields are higher why not do a straight one-for-one swap 77W-744. I'm not sure if they could make JFK non-stop but routes such as HKG-LAX and HKG-YVR-JFK would definitely be doable. Are the 744's costs so prohibitive that they would even make these routes unprofitable?

The 744's cost are really so prohibitive at this time when fuel price is sky high. cx flyboy has very well summarized the rational behind the change from 744s to 77Ws for CX's trans-pac flights in the last couple of years.

cx828 · Sat May 19, 2012 1:38 pm

so FRA still use 744 then.

trex8 · Sat May 19, 2012 4:09 pm

Wouldn't it be more cost effective to have a stop for routes to US east coast than the nonstops, regardless of the equipment. What are the landing fees for a wide body at ANC

DTWLAX · Sat May 19, 2012 6:10 pm

Quoting cx828 (Thread starter):
They plan to partially cut JFK 845/846, LAX 884/885

Doesn't CX 884/885 operate only during spring/summer season? And that is also not daily (if I am correct).
CX has always had 2x daily consistently from LAX. It is just the 3rd frequency that is seasonal.
If that is the case this thread does not apply to LAX

MarcoPoloWorld · Sat May 19, 2012 8:41 pm

My question would be this - There are quite a few 747 operators out there, especially on routes across the Pacific. Cathay says that they can't make break-even on long-haul routes on the jumbo anymore in the current fuel cost environment. Are CX's markets and cost structure that different from the others, or should we assume at this point that all the other long-haul 744 routes by other operators currently are money losers too?

flythere · Sat May 19, 2012 10:04 pm

Quoting MarcoPoloWorld (Reply 40):
My question would be this - There are quite a few 747 operators out there, especially on routes across the Pacific. Cathay says that they can't make break-even on long-haul routes on the jumbo anymore in the current fuel cost environment. Are CX's markets and cost structure that different from the others, or should we assume at this point that all the other long-haul 744 routes by other operators currently are money losers too?

Yea, they do fly across Pacific, but they dont fly as long as or as far as Cathay does. I believe UA thinks the same way, they cant wait to pull off the 744 on ORD-HKG vv and let 77E to run it.

cx828 · Sun May 20, 2012 2:10 am

Just curious why BA and LF's 744 sill efficient to fly long haul then?? They both still have a bunch of 744.

Jonathanxxxx · Mon May 21, 2012 12:51 am

Quoting cx828 (Reply 42):

I'm pretty sure it is because they use them on shorter stage lengths. LHR-MIA or FRA-IAD are nowhere near as long as HKG-JFK or HKG-LAX

CX Flyboy · Mon May 21, 2012 1:14 am

Quoting cx828 (Reply 42):
Just curious why BA and LF's 744 sill efficient to fly long haul then?? They both still have a bunch of 744.

Who said they were efficient?

Numerous airlines around the world are reporting financial figures at the moment and they either continue to be losses or small profits and in some cases airlines have seen huge drops in profits for the first quarter. Airlines will never tell shareholders which routes make money and which do not but you can be sure that practically every airline has it's profitable routes and also loss making routes. It would not surprise me if most airlines are struggling with their 744s at the moment.

Having said that, it is hard to compare airline to airline. Every airline has a different cost structure. They pay differently for fuel, maintenance, staff costs, landing fees, overflight charges, catering costs etc... Every flight has a different yield as well. Some city pairs produce a good demand for high-yield passengers in First and Business class whereas others do not. Obviously every airline has different pricing strategies as well and on some routes a much higher load factor is needed to make money than others. Cargo also plays a significant role for some airlines on some routes and less so for other airlines and other routes.

trex8 · Mon May 21, 2012 12:06 pm

No doubt the 77W has lower "operating" costs but the capital acquistion costs aren't chicken feed with lease rates at 1 million + /month for a 77W, finance costs must be comparable if not higher. Some ailrines probably find that buying anew plane, even a more "efficient" one is not necessarily that much better for immediate cash flow.

cx828 · Tue May 22, 2012 2:41 pm

I think only 6 more 77w are coming next year, so 744 may still need to stay for some years unless they receive more from boeing.

lightsaber · Tue May 22, 2012 3:57 pm

Quoting cx828 (Thread starter):
“That’s why we’re robbing North America of some 777s and putting them on Europe"

I found that interesting. I'd like to see a CASM analysis broken down by different costs at today's fuel prices. I couldn't see an airline that is capable of raising cash sticking for long with the 744. The payback time isn't that long.

Fuel for longhaul is now 40% of the cost of flying. The cost to acquire the aircraft is closer to 10%.

Not to mention the 787 is now entering the fleet at 'better weights.' Once the PIPs are put into the engine, how will a 744 compete with the 787? IMHO, it is time for CX to order the Baby Boeing widebody.

Now the 748i is a different story with lower fuel burn and greater uplift. However, its window is short before the 777X enters the fleet...

Quoting aviateur (Reply 20):
Quoting sq_ek_freak (Reply 5):
I mean lets put this in context, even with these cuts, CX still has one of the (if not the) strongest presences in North America amongst the big Asian carriers.

I'd give that to Korean Air.

I would too. KE is doing an excellent job of expanding to secondary cities in North America.

Quoting cx flyboy (Reply 44):
It would not surprise me if most airlines are struggling with their 744s at the moment.

Nor me. It just might be a time to consolidate. I'm not saying scrap all 744s today. But CX is too dependent upon the type.

Quoting trex8 (Reply 45):
Some ailrines probably find that buying anew plane, even a more "efficient" one is not necessarily that much better for immediate cash flow.

This will separate the credit worthy from the non-credit worthy. It is also a question of time. A longer lease has a slightly lower lease rate.

Quoting cx828 (Reply 46):

I think only 6 more 77w are coming next year, so 744 may still need to stay for some years unless they receive more from boeing.

Or service will have to be cut so that RASM climbs to exceed CASM. The issue for CX is some of their competition has worked to replace the 744s earlier.

Lightsaber

flythere · Tue May 22, 2012 7:07 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47):
But CX is too dependent upon the type.

That never comes close to BA. 744 only accounts for less than one-fifth of pax fleet of CX, all others are 777/333/340

flythere · Tue May 22, 2012 7:08 pm

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 47):
But CX is too dependent upon the type.

That never comes close to BA. 744 only accounts for less than one-fifth of pax fleet of CX, the rest are 777/333/340

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net