Cathay Pacific, has 4 flight a day on the HKG - LAX route, and they all 77Ws, but I wonder, why CX do not order an A380 to reduce the flights to 3 a day on this route? Is it due to all 4 flights been cargo heavy, or are they just happly with 4 fligths?
Please forgive me if this question been adress before.
Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
Frequency.
Allows flexibility for premium passengers.
Allows flexibility for premium passengers.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
I think within CX the 77W is the VLA. Capacity wise it is the 3rd biggest aircraft in the world behind A380 and 748 but before 744. Since CX doesn't have A380 or 748 this is the biggest they can send. But maybe they'll take the dive one of those days and then it is obvious they will send the 380 to LAX.
There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
-
- Carpethead
- Posts: 2620
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
Plus LHR but to have VLA for two routes and maybe 4/5 aircraft, CX probably did their number crunching and the answer came out multiple 77Ws do the job better.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
Quite true concerning LHR and LAX . Why cann ´ t they fly a couple of 747-8i ?!?!?!?
-
- aviationaware
- Posts: 2858
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
CX caters heavily to biz pax heading to/fro HKG/SE Asia. Biz travellers favor frequency. There's your answer. Plus retaining slots as others mentioned. Much easier to shift capacity around/start new destinations/adjust capacity with the 77W as opposed to A380. Pure speculation on my part but this is what I would guess.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
Also keeping others far from the route is a good idea, so offering 4 daily plus all the cargo space makes difficult for others to try it.
I dont think CX needs the A380 for this route, but i'm sure some others could do very well.
Even JFK i think B77W can do an excellent job but in the future if they need some extra capacity in the existing routes they can opt for ordering 10-15 A380 to use on JFK, LAX, LHR, CDG, maybe some intra chine routes, PEK, PVG. Or even some regional Tokyo, SIN, BKK.
I dont think CX needs the A380 for this route, but i'm sure some others could do very well.
Even JFK i think B77W can do an excellent job but in the future if they need some extra capacity in the existing routes they can opt for ordering 10-15 A380 to use on JFK, LAX, LHR, CDG, maybe some intra chine routes, PEK, PVG. Or even some regional Tokyo, SIN, BKK.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
As others have said - it is primarily related to Cathay's general strategy of emphasizing frequency over aircraft size (not just with respect to LAX, or the U.S., but in general).
Cathay benefits from the fact that due to its geography (right in the heart of East Asia), time zones, and the massive premium O&D market, HKG is fairly uniquely positioned among East Asian hubs to support not just 1 or 2 but in some case 3, 4 or even 5 daily nonstop flights to major global markets like LAX, NYC and LON all on just the local hub carrier. The fact that Cathay is such an exceptional carrier and so well-regarded doesn't hurt in attracting passengers to utilize HKG as a connecting point to Asia, either.
Finally, with respect specifically to LAX, Cathay also obviously benefits from a substantial amount of connecting traffic at LAX to/from AA, which funnels passengers from around the U.S. and even further afield to get to HKG and onward to points throughout Asia.
Cathay benefits from the fact that due to its geography (right in the heart of East Asia), time zones, and the massive premium O&D market, HKG is fairly uniquely positioned among East Asian hubs to support not just 1 or 2 but in some case 3, 4 or even 5 daily nonstop flights to major global markets like LAX, NYC and LON all on just the local hub carrier. The fact that Cathay is such an exceptional carrier and so well-regarded doesn't hurt in attracting passengers to utilize HKG as a connecting point to Asia, either.
Finally, with respect specifically to LAX, Cathay also obviously benefits from a substantial amount of connecting traffic at LAX to/from AA, which funnels passengers from around the U.S. and even further afield to get to HKG and onward to points throughout Asia.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting AviationAware (Reply 5): Quoting ben175 (Reply 1): Frequency. Allows flexibility for premium passengers. An oft quoted reason for CX not to order the A380, yet CX has many flights to the same destinations departing very, very close to one another. |
The reason seems plausible with the HKG-LAX-HKG schedules, whether you're ready to accept it or not. From www.flightstats.com today:
[Edited 2014-06-29 09:46:51]
-
- olympic472
- Posts: 141
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
There are many banks of flights from mainland China with passengers connecting to the US.
I hear frequently that Cathay is the carrier of choice for many Chinese flying to the USA.
Also India subcontinent connections.
O&D is also big so morning departure works and is preferred
As stated above, frequency is better.
Then what will CX do with all the seats on a 380 when the business environment changes.
I hear frequently that Cathay is the carrier of choice for many Chinese flying to the USA.
Also India subcontinent connections.
O&D is also big so morning departure works and is preferred
As stated above, frequency is better.
Then what will CX do with all the seats on a 380 when the business environment changes.
Civil Aviation has a "Need for Speed"!
-
- aviationaware
- Posts: 2858
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting MIflyer12 (Reply 9): The reason seems plausible with the HKG-LAX-HKG schedules, whether you're ready to accept it or not. From www.flightstats.com today: |
That may very well be, I did not speak specifically of the HKG-LAX route, but overall Cathay has some very tightly spaced flights to the same (long haul) destination.
As has already been said here, and on other threads regarding the matter, VLAs make sense for CX for a limited amount of their operations, but an airline has to look at the big picture and not at a route-to-route.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting dennys (Reply 4): |
There is simply no way they would ever go for the 748i.
If they wanted to go with an even larger aircraft than the 77w they would opt for the A380.
There is no point in paying a premium to upgrade a few routes to new planes in a small subfleet if you are only going to marginally increase the size of the bird to a 748i.
Also the A380 economics are far better to the 748i.
Realistically, if they had this thought, and they might.... I bet they would be calling Airbus to seriously inquire about their desires to one day build that A380neo that A.net is so in love with.
Same bird, better costs and they have a few years to grow that market even more.
No point of rushing into a decision, if there is even one to make, just for the sake of making a decision.
bchandl
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
I think because the current Hong Kong Airport at Chek Lap Kok can operate 24 hours a day, CX will not buy the A380 or 747-8I. They would rather emphasize more frequency of service on their long routes, as noted by the fact they have 40 77W's and will add over the next ten years the A35J and 779 to the fleet (expect the A35J to fly to LAX and SFO for a short while, then be finally replaced by the 779).
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting AviationAware (Reply 11): overall Cathay has some very tightly spaced flights to the same (long haul) destination. |
Which flights are you talking about, except for the two night departures from HKG to LHR?
| Quoting RayChuang (Reply 13): I think because the current Hong Kong Airport at Chek Lap Kok can operate 24 hours a day, CX will not buy the A380 or 747-8I. |
HKG is in fact quite full in terms of runway capacity. So on the face of it, larger aircraft do make sense, at least until the third runway is built (assuming it will go ahead). But then, as everybody else has noted here, CX prefers frequency, apparently for good commercial reasons.
-
- MaverickM11
- Posts: 18397
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting AviationAware (Reply 5): An oft quoted reason for CX not to order the A380, yet CX has many flights to the same destinations departing very, very close to one another. |
Those wing tip departures from LAX may be "replaceable" with a 380, but what do you do when one of those 77Ws continues on from HKG to SIN and one to CGK for example? The 77W gives them flexibility all over the network, not just in places where they may have wingtips.
| Quoting RayChuang (Reply 13): I think because the current Hong Kong Airport at Chek Lap Kok can operate 24 hours a day, CX will not buy the A380 or 747-8I. |
I think that helps a little but ultimately the marginal benefit of a small subfleet of VLAs would be far outweighed by the increased cost and complexity.
I don't take responsibility at all
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting bchandl (Reply 12): If they wanted to go with an even larger aircraft than the 77w they would opt for the A380. |
They picked the 777-9 already.
CX Placed An Order For 21 777-9X (by flythere Dec 20 2013 in Civil Aviation)
In addition the CEO has been on the record more than once in the last few years down playing the VLA option.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17): They picked the 777-9 already. CX Placed An Order For 21 777-9X (by flythere Dec 20 2013 in Civil Aviation) In addition the CEO has been on the record more than once in the last few years down playing the VLA option. |
I don't know why, but the 777x never crossed my mind. I'm dumb.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
From operational standpoint, dual is always preferred to quad, much lower inventory cost or chance of event flight due to engine issue.
From passenger standpoint, frequency (more time choices) is always favoured given similar pricing.
And imagine in the event of A380 AOG how the chaos would be.
Cathay is happy with the current 40 77W in their fleet and they are going to receive 10 more in the remaining 2014 and 2015, for new routes like MAN ZRH and other existing destinations. 50 77W is a pretty good-looking number right after Emirates as the 2nd largest operator for 77W.
From passenger standpoint, frequency (more time choices) is always favoured given similar pricing.
And imagine in the event of A380 AOG how the chaos would be.
Cathay is happy with the current 40 77W in their fleet and they are going to receive 10 more in the remaining 2014 and 2015, for new routes like MAN ZRH and other existing destinations. 50 77W is a pretty good-looking number right after Emirates as the 2nd largest operator for 77W.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting flythere (Reply 19): much lower inventory cost or chance of event flight due to engine issue. |
True, less engines means less chance for malfunction. However, if you're going to have an engine malfunction, you are better off having four engines. That was the whole concept behind only allowing quads on TATL/TPAC flights prior to ETOPS.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting bchandl (Reply 20): True, less engines means less chance for malfunction. However, if you're going to have an engine malfunction, you are better off having four engines. That was the whole concept behind only allowing quads on TATL/TPAC flights prior to ETOPS. |
it is true but with the development of new technology and increase in the ETOPS the quads are losing the game. and even more with the new generation of A350, B779, they have very good economics, big cargo capacity, and big pax capacity.
| Quoting flythere (Reply 19): Cathay is happy with the current 40 77W in their fleet and they are going to receive 10 more in the remaining 2014 and 2015, for new routes like MAN ZRH and other existing destinations. 50 77W is a pretty good-looking number right after Emirates as the 2nd largest operator for 77W. |
It´s quite impressive, 40+10 and in a few years some more B779.
Will we see the B77F or A33F in CX fleet?? or they will stay with B747F as only cargo plane??
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting migair54 (Reply 21): Will we see the B77F or A33F in CX fleet?? or they will stay with B747F as only cargo plane?? |
I believe CX will stick with 748F as their cargo fleet. For most freight of smaller size, pax planes belly can cover. They don't really need a freighter of capacity in between.
And the fact is, they just cancelled the 77F order.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
As a frequent traveller from/to HKG I don't really care that CX is offering 3-4-5 frequencies per day but I do care they have seats available when I want to travel ! - which is too often not the case. So for "FFP optimization" I now fly on another Asian carrier.
Never trust the obvious
-
- skipness1E
- Posts: 4884
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting Aither (Reply 23): As a frequent traveller from/to HKG I don't really care that CX is offering 3-4-5 frequencies per day but I do care they have seats available when I want to travel ! - which is too often not the case. So for "FFP optimization" I now fly on another Asian carrier. |
That seems contradictory - they offer 3-4-5 freqs/day, so if they don't have seats available, it's because they're sold out, not because they don't have enough flights. Unless you're referring to award seats, which, oh well. I just redeemed 2 CX awards in F, so they're out there.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting 9w748capt (Reply 25): That seems contradictory - they offer 3-4-5 freqs/day, so if they don't have seats available, it's because they're sold out, |
It's not contradictory. I'm only interested by the evening flight. I don't really care if they have available seats the rest of the day. I'm not going to change my departure time just to be on CX.
[Edited 2014-07-09 08:22:50]
Never trust the obvious
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting Aither (Reply 23): As a frequent traveller from/to HKG I don't really care that CX is offering 3-4-5 frequencies per day but I do care they have seats available when I want to travel ! - which is too often not the case. So for "FFP optimization" I now fly on another Asian carrier. |
It would seem that they have figured out the right formula as they are often either sold out (in J) or they are able to charge a high premium vs. other airlines. I unfortunately had to give up flying them (from NY) long ago because my employer adopted a policy where we could only fly on the lowest priced option. This meant flying on a variety of other carriers and hellish itineraries (even two layovers!). Ahh, I miss the good ole' days on Cathay 889.
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting Aither (Reply 23): As a frequent traveller from/to HKG I don't really care that CX is offering 3-4-5 frequencies per day but I do care they have seats available when I want to travel |
True frequent travelers do care about frequencies as they are pretty time-conscious and they are normally the ones who are more willing to spend a few more bucks just to get the flights that fit their own schedule.
And I am sure CX would raise the capacity if certain flights sold out often.
-
- jetblue1965
- Posts: 5050
- Joined:
RE: Why CX Is Not Operating VLAs To LAX?
| Quoting flythere (Reply 28): True frequent travelers do care about frequencies as they are pretty time-conscious and they are normally the ones who are more willing to spend a few more bucks just to get the flights that fit their own schedule. |
Exactly, I'm a frequent traveler to DLC myself and if the time is right, who cares about the price as it is all company budget.
YLWbased
Hong Kong is not China. Not better or worse, just different.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 426Shadow, AH45, carlokiii, Cboyle, DLASFlyer, EMBSPBR, flyCMH, Gemuser, Hash00, hoons90, IdlewildJFK, Jshank83, kavok, n9801f, NW, ORDPlanesTrains, QF41, randomdude83, Raventech, roadpilot, SammyXV, SkyLife, Spacepope, staralliance38, tofur, tootallsd, TrafficCop, Vasu, Vctony, VirginFlyer, winstonavgeek and 349 guests