Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

Max Q · Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:42 am

I believe it was a few years ago CX was granted route authority for London - New York.

Anyone know if they still have this and any plans to link these two cities ?

Scanorama · Sun Oct 19, 2014 4:16 am

I think they decided to open up an extra HKG-LHR-HKG flight with the slot.

If my memory serves me right, it was part of the deal they made with VS, where VS was able to launch HKG-SYD-HKG?

lhcvg · Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:12 am

Quoting Max Q (Thread starter):

Going off scanorama's post, unlike SQ they have the advantage of being able to do many major U.S. markets n/s from HKG -- ORD and JFK plus West Coast all can be done, whereas SQ had to do the special ULH config to get to NYC from SIN. To that end, I don't see (as) much value for CX to enter the super crowded TATL market if the opportunity cost is to bolster a marquee route like LHR.

777Jet · Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:19 am

Then how about a RTW on CX metal one day:

HKG-LHR-JFK-HKG

SCL767 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:26 am

Quoting scanorama (Reply 1):
I think they decided to open up an extra HKG-LHR-HKG flight with the slot.

IIRC, CX got the slot from NZ, (NZ no longer flies LHR-HKG).

777Jet · Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:29 am

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 4):
(NZ no longer flies LHR-HKG).

Was NZ flying to LHR from both LAX and HKG at the same time?

If so, a RTW on NZ could have been done:

AKL-HKG-LHR-LAX-AKL

Or was HKG-LHR dropped and LAX-LHR started? I'm not familiar with NZ ops @ LHR...

SCL767 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:38 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 5):
Was NZ flying to LHR from both LAX and HKG at the same time?

Yes.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 5):
If so, a RTW on NZ could have been done:

AKL-HKG-LHR-LAX-AKL

NZ did indeed fly AKL-LAX-LHR-HKG-AKL. However as a well managed airline, NZ decided to lease and/or sell the LHR slot to CX. NZ has also increased cooperation with CX.

cedarjet · Sun Oct 19, 2014 5:58 am

Yup, plucky little Air New Zealand was the last RTW airline. In one direction to London (either the HKG or the LAX), it was 777, the other direction was 747 and I THINK HKG got the 747.

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 5):
Or was HKG-LHR dropped and LAX-LHR started? I'm not familiar with NZ ops @ LHR...

Air New Zealand have been flying the route via LAX since the 70s, they actually operated BA's LAX-LHR flights with a BA flight number before BA started their own flights on the route (BA's heritage west coast destination was SFO) with the DC-10. I guess it was AKL-LAX-LGW, they only moved over to LHR relatively recently (90s?). But to answer your question, Air NZ have operated to London via Los Angeles since the 70s. HKG was a brief experiment much more recently.

ZKOJH · Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:08 am

NZ have been serving LHR for around 30 years. with their main route being LHR-LAX-AKL (NZ001) the flight has been used by different aircraft including 744,772 and most recently the 77W.

in recent years they Started a second flight out of LHR - eastbound via HKG to make the only true around the world airline. this service was served with 744's and 772. (LHR-HKG-AKL-LAX-LHR)

but as markets in Europe started to fall apart, cost of fuel went threw the roof and the very expensive "APD" from the UK Government - NZ's international routes were very week with profit, so they had to respond and in 2013 they axed several international routes from their network, including PEK-AKL and LHR-HKG (4th March)

" At the time Chief Executive Rob Fyfe said that a comprehensive review of the London – Hong Kong service confirmed that the route would not become profitable in the foreseeable future. “At the same time, we wanted to strengthen our presence in Hong Kong, which is an important market and vital gateway into Mainland China for Air New Zealand."

- the slot was handed over to CX who could then increase their presence to 5x daily flights.

So at the moment NZ operate a daily service from LHR T2 - Westbound to LAX and onto AKL , restrictions in place mean they are only allowed to operate 1 flight a day.

mercure1 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 6:17 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 8):
NZ have been serving LHR for around 30 years.

London yes, but NZ did not move up to LHR from LGW until the mid 1990s IIRC.

richcandy · Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:48 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 8):
in recent years they Started a second flight out of LHR - eastbound via HKG to make the only true around the world airline. this service was served with 744's and 772. (LHR-HKG-AKL-LAX-LHR)

but as markets in Europe started to fall apart, cost of fuel went threw the roof and the very expensive "APD" from the UK Government - NZ's international routes were very week with profit, so they had to respond and in 2013 they axed several international routes from their network, including PEK-AKL and LHR-HKG (4th March)

Also LHR-HKG with NZ wasn't daily and they were competing against CX with multiple daily services, BA with double daily and VS with a daily service, I think QF also were flying the route around the same time. So it was difficult to sell NZ to passengers traveling for business or even some short break leisure passengers as they didn't offer anything like the same choice of departures as CX.

How did APD help to end the NZ LHR-HKG service? Didn't passengers flying CX/BA/VS/QF etc not also have to pay it?

Alex

AR385 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:50 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 7):
they actually operated BA's LAX-LHR flights with a BA flight number before BA started their own flights on the route

True. But didn´t BA´s cabin crew took over at LAX and actually put BA seat covers on the NZ DC-10? Well, the handkerchief thingie that goes on top of the seat. It was quite interesting logistically.

AF1565 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 7:56 am

Couldn't CX use their transatlantic rights to start HKG-BHX-JFK? Birmingham has a large Chinese population and is missing a non stop flight to the far east. Also, Birmingham is missing a connection to JFK.

Scanorama · Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:23 am

Quoting SCL767 (Reply 4):
IIRC, CX got the slot from NZ, (NZ no longer flies LHR-HKG).

I'm fairly certain it was VS - around the same time they started SYD in around 2004. NZ only stopped LHR-HKG a lot more recently. I believe it was a deal done between Hong Kong and British Government so that VS could do HKG-SYD-HKG with 5th freedom. My memory is a bit sketchy on this one as it was a long time around.

With the extra LHR slot, I believe CX started its 3rd daily flight to LHR, and probably the same with the JFK slot. It would have been great to see CX does RTW fights, but I can't see it happening soon, especially the competition on LHR-JFK-LHR is fierce.

EDIT: Here is the thread from 2004 when VS announced the commencement of LHR-HKG-SYD-HKG-LHR service. Sad that they lasted just under 10 years in Sydney. Virgin Atlantic Gains Approval For LHR-SYD (by QF744 Jun 21 2004 in Civil Aviation)

[Edited 2014-10-19 01:30:58]

SEPilot · Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:44 am

I see CX as being a pretty well-run airline, and as such it will be focusing on its core routes and working to maximize the return from them. I am of the opinion that its core is Asia to Europe and Asia to North America; trying to compete TATL is way outside of that, and would only sap resources that could better be used elsewhere (besides being ridiculously competitive). I do not see CX doing that I do not see RTW service as being good for anything other than bragging rights; and that is why there is no airline doing it today. And I do not expect any well-run airline to start it; there just is no business reason to do so.

SCL767 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:13 am

Quoting scanorama (Reply 13):
I'm fairly certain it was VS - around the same time they started SYD in around 2004. NZ only stopped LHR-HKG a lot more recently. I believe it was a deal done between Hong Kong and British Government so that VS could do HKG-SYD-HKG with 5th freedom. My memory is a bit sketchy on this one as it was a long time around.

It was a deal done between CX and NZ:

Quote:
The airline and Air New Zealand have just started a strategic agreement where they code-share on the Auckland-Hong Kong route. The agreement had come into play in January and although it was early days, Hogg said it was working well. "What we're trying to do is to develop the route so we can grow frequency quicker than we could alone - we can give, at each end, connectivity." Cathay has also replaced Air New Zealand on its loss-making Hong Kong-London service, leasing its Heathrow slot which has given it a fifth daily service to London.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ticle.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10870858

777Jet · Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:17 am

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
I do not see RTW service as being good for anything other than bragging rights; and that is why there is no airline doing it today. And I do not expect any well-run airline to start it; there just is no business reason to do so.

EK appears to be a well run airline and *if* given the opportunity I have no doubt they would jump on a route like SYD-LAX so that they could offer a RTW service on EK metal

vv701 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 11:25 am

Quoting cedarjet (Reply 7):
they actually operated BA's LAX-LHR flights with a BA flight number before BA started their own flights on the route

BA were flying LHR-LAX daily long before their arrangement with NZ started in May 1975.

Before the arrangement BA operated 704s between LHR and LAX. However they were loosing market share to both PA and TW who were both operating wide-bodied aircraft on this route.

The only wide-bodied aircraft then in the BA fleet that had the range to reach LAX was the 741. However it was too large for what was at that time a relatively small market.

So BA signed a four-year agreement with NZ. Initially this required the NZ DC-10 that operated the daily AUK-HNL-LAX (TE001) flight to be transferred to BA on arrival at LAX. This aircraft would then operate LAX-LHR (BA598). Meanwhile a second aircraft would be operating the return flights (BA599 and TE002). The BA coded flights were operated by BA crews, the TE coded flights by NZ crews.

View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Wingnut

This agreement was scheduled to last until April 1979. However by the beginning of the Summer 1978 schedules the success of this operation resulted in BA substituting their own newly delivered 742s for NZ's DC-10s on their weekday LAX service. So it was necessary to redeploy the two DC-10s that were effectively under a four-year lease from NZ to BA.

In effect two of NZ's aircraft were based at LHR. They each operated an LHR-LAX flight at the weekend where they were usually exchanged with aircraft operating that day's NZ trans-Pacific flight. When the two NZ aircraft arrived back at LHR they operated two other BA services during the following week. They were a five-times-weekly rotation to MIA and a three-times-weekly rotation to YMX.

When the BA /NZ agreement ended in April 1979 the two DC-10s were returned to NZ. All eight of NZ's DC-10s, including the two delivered to NZ during the currency of the agreement, were operated at one time or another by BA.

jetwet1 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 12:24 pm

Quoting scanorama (Reply 13):
EDIT: Here is the thread from 2004 when VS announced the commencement of LHR-HKG-SYD-HKG-LHR service. Sad that they lasted just under 10 years in Sydney.
Virgin Atlantic Gains Approval For LHR-SYD (by QF744 Jun 21 2004 in Civil Aviation)

An amazing look back in time....How quickly the aviation world has changed and how the predictions were so off, though to be fair, I would have agreed with the majority of them.

brilondon · Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:02 pm

Quoting AF1565 (Reply 12):

Couldn't CX use their transatlantic rights to start HKG-BHX-JFK? Birmingham has a large Chinese population and is missing a non stop flight to the far east. Also, Birmingham is missing a connection to JFK.

If there were enough people, I would think that BA would be more apt to do that route or VS. That being said I would like to see more direct flights to avoid the train trip from London to the north. I get this is an airliner forum but the train for me is much more convenient than having to connect at LHR or even worse the connection from LGW.

MaverickM11 · Sun Oct 19, 2014 1:14 pm

CX will not start transatlantic. They are too smart to do that.

AeroWesty · Sun Oct 19, 2014 2:56 pm

Quoting AR385 (Reply 11):
Well, the handkerchief thingie that goes on top of the seat.

For some reason, I've always thought that was interestingly named: Antimacassar

gilesdavies · Sun Oct 19, 2014 3:56 pm

Just throwing it out there...

They are due to start MAN-HKG in the coming months, maybe they could bolt it on to this route and maybe reach some sort of codeshare agreement with AA to operate the route on their behalf, seeing as both are OneWorld member...

I think the chances are slim to zero. But just an idea.

flyinghippo · Sun Oct 19, 2014 8:24 pm

IMHO - If CX started JFK-LHR, and the price is similar to all the other airlines flying at that time slot, a lot of people would choose to fly with CX instead of AA, DL, BA, VS. Who else flies that route that can compete with CX on both hardware and soft product?

sunrisevalley · Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:20 pm

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 8):
At the time Chief Executive Rob Fyfe said that a comprehensive review of the London – Hong Kong service confirmed that the route would not become profitable in the foreseeable future. “At the same time, we wanted to strengthen our presence in Hong Kong, which is an important market and vital gateway into Mainland China for Air New Zealand."

If they had taken the initial three or four 788's they had ordered they could have made HKG-LHR-HKG work. The seat count would have fitted the load factor like a glove, so the early birds were 4 to 5t overweight but that only translates into ~ a 4% increase in fuel burn still about 16% less than the 77E that they had on the route. About the only issue that would have caused them pain was the battery grounding.

DolphinAir747 · Mon Oct 20, 2014 12:09 am

Does CX have rights for transatlantic to other countries? LHR-SCL comes to mind.

ZK-NBT · Mon Oct 20, 2014 2:55 am

Quoting sunrisevalley (Reply 24):

Could being the key work I would say.

Quoting DolphinAir747 (Reply 25):

That seems along way around. Via AKL/SYD or JNB would seem a few hours shorter?! Anyway CX serve SCL via LAN from AKL, JFK and LAX.

davidho1985 · Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:14 am

If CX can get an additional slot in LHR, they would rather use it on the HKG-LHR instead of LHR-NYC;
same for the slot in NYC, an additional flight betwen HKG-NYC is always better then an odd NYC-LHR flight.

HKG212 · Mon Oct 20, 2014 4:14 am

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 3):
Then how about a RTW on CX metal one day:

HKG-LHR-JFK-HKG

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
I do not see CX doing that I do not see RTW service as being good for anything other than bragging rights

Indeed. I can't see how you rationalize load factors vis-à-vis city-pair demand, schedules, etc.

Quoting SEPilot (Reply 14):
I am of the opinion that its core is Asia to Europe and Asia to North America; trying to compete TATL is way outside of that, and would only sap resources that could better be used elsewhere (besides being ridiculously competitive).

Not to mention, competing with the joint venture operated by their OW alliance partners AA and BA (granted they are competing with BA on HKG-LHR, but that's about their own hubs).

Quoting MaverickM11 (Reply 20):
CX will not start transatlantic. They are too smart to do that.

The interesting question is, why did they apply for it in the first place?

davidho1985 · Mon Oct 20, 2014 6:22 am

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 28):
CX will not start transatlantic. They are too smart to do that.

The interesting question is, why did they apply for it in the first place?

Just to get anything they can in exchange for the HKG-SYD traffic right given to VS.

[Edited 2014-10-19 23:22:51]

Max Q · Mon Oct 20, 2014 7:50 am

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 28):
The interesting question is, why did they apply for it in the first place?

I don't think thats quite true.

At the time they did have an interest in operating transatlantic. Obviously, this concept has been tabled.
Does anyone know if they even still have the authority ?

It may have expired or been rescinded as it has not been used.

MaverickM11 · Mon Oct 20, 2014 9:37 am

Quoting HKG212 (Reply 28):
The interesting question is, why did they apply for it in the first place?

I thought they did years ago, if at all, long before the 744 made them totally unnecessary.

Viscount724 · Wed Oct 22, 2014 2:15 am

Quoting ZKOJH (Reply 8):
NZ have been serving LHR for around 30 years. with their main route being LHR-LAX-AKL (NZ001) the flight has been used by different aircraft including 744,772 and most recently the 77W.

NZ also operated LAX-FRA with 5th freedom rights for a while. If memory correct it was only 2 or 3 times a week.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 17):
Before the arrangement BA operated 704s between LHR and LAX. However they were loosing market share to both PA and TW who were both operating wide-bodied aircraft on this route.

If you're referring to the BA (BOAC) 707-436s, I don't they had the range for nonstop LHR-LAX They would have had to use the 707-336B/C if they operated nonstop. But it's my recollection that BA mainly used the VC-10 on LHR-LAX and with a stop at JFK. The flights continued to HNL-NAN-SYD.

They used the 707-436 on the similar North Pacific route LHR-JFK-SFO-HNL-HND-HKG. If memory correct, the South Pacific route also originally operated via SFO as BA didn't have traffic rights to LAX at the time.

United Airline · Wed Oct 22, 2014 5:39 am

Will NZ restart HKG-LHR-HKG once they get more B787s?

Thought CX was desperate to start HKG-LHR-JFK-LHR-HKG as well as HKG-SYD-LAX-SYD-HKG many years ago

1400mph · Wed Oct 22, 2014 7:43 am

Quoting flyinghippo (Reply 23):
IMHO - If CX started JFK-LHR, and the price is similar to all the other airlines flying at that time slot, a lot of people would choose to fly with CX instead of AA, DL, BA, VS. Who else flies that route that can compete with CX on both hardware and soft product?

Now come on you know JFK is about frequency.

When CX can offer 12 flights a day on the route (BA & AA ) 'not including' EWR or LCY they may have a chance.

(BA and AA have perfectly reasonable products)

Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

RE: Will Cathay Ever Use Their Transatlantic Rights?

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net