Quoting CX Flyboy (Reply 22): Lots of airlines are safe according to stats. That doesn't mean I FEEL safe. I could probably fly China Airlines for thousands of years before I was involved in an accident but that doesn't mean I don't feel nervous. Many passengers have the same sentiment. It isn't about reality, it is about perception, and having a western crew accounts for a lot. I hear this exact thing from many of my friends who fly CX for business and pleasure.

Well said, and I couldn't agree more.



Good for Cathay, well deserved award for a first rate airline.

Quoting planemanofnz (Reply 38): The fact of the matter is that CX has benefited from HKG's proximity to the fast-growing China, and to suggest its profits are being made solely because of a superior product offering is naive.

Such a fallacy that you think CX is the only carrier group at HKG? What a joke! People do have alternative carriers to travel even they go through HKG.
You seem to have ignored the fact that there are a large number of foreign carriers are operating to HKG as well, which means CX doesnt monopolize on most routes, only with a few exception like LAX JFK and several thin regional routes.

If the product isn't up to that standard to justify the premium that they charge, people can simply vote by their foot.

Please look at the very same article that you quoted, http://centreforaviation.com/analysi...ack-on-track---but-to-where-157701
There it states "12 of 13 Asian long-haul airlines serve North America: they are growing and have better geography", which means other North Asian carriers enjoy a geographical advantage OVER CX. And people from CAN MFM or SZX can easily opt for transiting at other aviation hubs such as PEK, PVG, ICN, NRT, BKK. So it's kind of nonsense to draw those lines for CX.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 46): Their genius part comes from using completely different branding (instead of UA vs. UAX or AA vs. eAAgle), so when people review them as an airline, only the good parts are reviewed.

Indeed Dragonair has been rewarded the Best Regional Airlines for many times and this year only marginally slipped to 2nd place right after Bangkok Airways (which is also a very decent airline). To many people's surprise, some people at Hong Kong even rate KA over CX in terms of services or offerings.

On the contrary, I don't quite see Silk Air is up to that league at all, and your point is quite valid on this regard, just not for KA.

Quoting planemanofnz (Reply 48): CX is capturing some of the market because the connectivity out of CAN is so poor, not necessarily because CX's product offering is superior.

CAN connectivity is poor? CZ is the largest airline in Asia.

Quoting Jetblue1965 (Reply 46): They HAVE completely owned regional subsidiaries in the form of Dragonair and Silk/Tiger that do narrow bodies and short-haul regional routes to lesser destinations.

Indeed, but they still operate many short mainline routes -eg SQ to KUL, CX to TPE, PEK, PVG (joint CX / KA destinations)

Quoting flythere (Reply 52): Such a fallacy that you think CX is the only carrier group at HKG?

Nope, in the same post you cited I talked about being able to fly to 8 North American destinations from HKG - obviously that 8 includes the likes of DTW which is flown by DL, and not CX.

Quoting SR 103 (Reply 50): You forgot about J again, where there is a big difference between the 333/773 and the others.

Nope, in the paragraph directly above your cited comment I dealt with J and the topic of a proper bed.

Quoting flythere (Reply 53): I don't quite see Silk Air is up to that league at all

I fully agree with this - KA beats MI any day.

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 54): CAN connectivity is poor?

Yes, comparatively, to destinations outside of Asia, particularly in North America and Europe.

Quoting planemanofnz (Reply 47): CXGabriel, it's all well and good for you to cite a handful of isolated comments to support your argument that SQ has just as many issues as CX does, but you should check out Skytrax's customer review summary - with around 1500 reviews for each airline, SQ has been given a 90% (4.5/5 star) ranking, while CX has only been given a 70% (3.5/5 star) ranking. That speaks for itself.

I certainly did, and they're rated out of 10, not 5. CX has more reviews than SQ, and CX is shown having an average of about 7.8 while SQ with an average of about 8.7. But averages only showed part of the story, so if you look at the latest 22 reviews (SQ's first page showed 22 reviews but CX's first page showed a bunch more for some reason, and I don't have time to run statistic on 1400+ reviews for each airlines), here's the breakdown:

Avg mode range median 1Q 3Q
SQ 7.36 10 1 - 10 8.5 5 10
CX 7.91 10 2 - 10 8 7 10

So what's does it say? These two scores aren't very different from one another, especially if you have time to do the box plot. Another words, statistically insignificant. You certainly entitled to your belief.

Oh BTW, the comments from SQ were picked out of that first page of SQ's comment section. There are a few more negative reviews if I wanted to include them from that first 22 reviews. If you read the negative ones from CX and SQ, there're some common theme, such as old product, not so great flight attendants' services, etc.

I do want to make this clear, I'm not trying to bash SQ as I think they're a great airline, as you can see on the statistic above. Both carriers have a lot of 10 out of 10 ratings, which says a lot more than those American carriers for sure. My point is they're not that different as some of you suggested. I do prefer CX and you prefer SQ, just leave it at that.

Lastly, Cathay does have a quality advantage over many airlines; thus, many do prefer flying CX over other carriers (I am one of them, and I know many do prefer CX as well). Therefore, it does help make more profit for the airline by filling out seats and higher premium for the front end (CX charged significantly more in J than UA, DL or AA on transpacific routes, but somehow CX still managed to fill those seats very well). You even said so when comparing CZ to CX, so certainly quality helps make money. Nobody suggests it's the only reason here.

I think a lot more people here would think more of these awards if Skytrax were a little more removed/independant of the voting process. Just a thought.

Quoting davidho1985 (Reply 20): Can not agree with it, espcially for the services onboard regional routes of CX

I'd gladly pay $20 to get that in Y on a US-Based carrier!
All I ever find is $10 sandwiches  


Anyhow, congratulations to CX! I really do hope I get a chance to fly them sometime, as well as SQ that keeps getting mentioned. Hopefully I get to try both carriers to HKG sometime... That's something I like about SFO, both SQ and CX to HKG. Kind of a strong contrast how we also have what is probably the worst possible long haul choice to HKG (or anywhere at all), UA 744's!

Quoting VCEflyboy (Reply 53): CAN connectivity is poor? CZ is the largest airline in Asia.

CAN international connectivity is definitely rather poor compared to HKG. CZ is only great at shifting domestic volume around.

Quoting S75752 (Reply 57): Kind of a strong contrast how we also have what is probably the worst possible long haul choice to HKG (or anywhere at all), UA 744's!

Indeed! Any of the US big 3 can't compete (quality-wise) with CX or SQ. I just flew AA to HKG recently to try their new 773ER, and the service, especially food, in their Main Cabin Extra (sort of their version of Y+) is just awful. The only reason I flew them is that I was in their inaugural flight heading to HKG and managed to get a cheap J class back to DFW.

Quoting CXGabriel (Reply 59):

At least AA's 77W has PTV IFE and Power in Y.
UA 744 has none of that except for one maybe two aircraft, certainly one of the transpacific bottom-of-the-barrels if not the complete bottom of the barrel, yet they have the nerve to advertise the 744 as having power on their site as a straightforward Yes. The only good news is that the 744's got removed from the SYD routes to be replaced with 772's.
AA/US 763's and 752's are pretty bad too, but at least those aren't flying HKG range things.

Contrasted hard against the CX and SQ service being the very top.

I'd like to dream that one day, USA carriers can be somewhere at least a bit closer to the level of those other carriers in terms of service and amenities, the (not soon enough) retirement of UA's 744's and AA/US 763/752's can be one of many small steps in the right direction. But VX's troubles is most certainly not a good sign toward it at all.
I imagine this will be the part where many who support the US airlines will cry "Subsidies!" but I haven't heard of any for CX and SQ.