Story now on CAPA:

Cathay Pacific's difficult 2016: hedging loss, growth cuts, A350 delay, unions, 10 abreast response

A bit disappointing to see a carrier like CX in this position.  

Are they gonna fix the atrocious catering in J?

Quoting rta (Reply 14): A bit disappointing to see a carrier like CX in this position.

This has been going on for quite awhile. Although the posters on a certain unnamed site are probably their most vociferous, any employee group with that much vitriol out in the open on the Internet is likely proving 'where there's smoke, there's fire' right. A couple of friends of mine who have joined the company within the last 10 years have said privately it is getting more divided now than they've yet seen.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 15): What is happening with MAD? Starting as scheduled in S16?

Appears so

In Aug-2015 Cathay flagged that the A350 could open service to London Gatwick, Madrid and Copenhagen. London Gatwick and Madrid have eventuated (Madrid with the 777-300ER, at least initially) while it appears Copenhagen is now at least a 2017 timeframe. Tel Aviv could also be in a 2017 timeframe.

It looks like in the article that CX will go 10 abreast in the 777

I'd always thought that CAPA is extremely biased towards CX. Wasn't there an instance when CX sued CAPA?

Seeing CX drop out of OW would be my dream. Another amazing airline for Star Alliance. 

This article while mentioning CX's consideration of 10 abreast in the 777 also says that BR is going 10 abreast as well. Did I miss that news?

I wonder if CX would go 10 abreast fleet wide, or just on the regional 772s and 773s and leave the longhaul 77Ws 9 abreast.

Aren't they supposed to be rolling out a totally new paintjob?

Quoting Miami (Thread starter): Any guesses on what it may be?

SEA is looooong overdue in the North American market on the CX route network. If it is a North American route announcement then i would expect it to announce a new SEA - HKG non stop.

A HKG - SJC nonstop would be my 2nd guess and would not surprise me (perhaps with an A 350 ?) .

Or will it be a surprise order for a bunch of 787s (wishful thinking).

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 24):

No offense, but I don't think a route to SEA qualifies as a "major" announcement. Maybe a mega aircraft order, like 50 787s, not a weenie one like 6 77Ws...

Given the timing before ANA announcement, three possibilities:

One. Bad news, and they are keen for ANA to bury their announcement within 24 hours, or

Two. Good news, comparable to ANA, and they want to steal their spotlight, or

Three. I over-estimate their PR team. It's neither.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 24): SEA is looooong overdue in the North American market on the CX route network. If it is a North American route announcement then i would expect it to announce a new SEA - HKG non stop.

If SEA-HKG can't work from a DL hub why would it work for CX?

Cathay delaying delivery of A350-900 and not having daily flights to Boston( flying there already) and not relaunching flights to LGW( they fly 5 times daily to LHR) is not a "Major Announcement". Cathay will come back from this, they over hedged their fuel for the next 4 years at high prices and those are coming home to roost on the balance sheet. The are still a world leading airline with a new fleet of 77W, A350-1000's on the way and 777-9 coming after 2020.

Its a headline they would prefer not to have to make but they are having labor issues with the unions( nothing new here). Its realistic to see airlines in Asia have similar problems to the EU3 and US3.

It looks like the worst news is focused around Cathay Pacific losing over a $1 Billion due to fuel hedging. They are effectively paying 2 or 3 times what their competitors are paying for fuel because of the hedging obligations.

Year Hedge Amount
2015 61% at USD95
2016 60% at USD85
2017 50% at USD89
2018 37% at USD82

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 26): Interesting. That means that MAD is high on their list and more of a priority than other destinations... even if Iberia is starting soon PVG and NRT, and the ME3 keep expanding.

MAD was announced a while ago. Starts in June.

If anyone bothered to read the Twitter link, it states " not looking good". So, no route announcement.

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 28): If SEA-HKG can't work from a DL hub why would it work for CX?

Because
1) CX has a bigger and better hub at the HKG end (with more Asian connections) as compared to what DL has at the SEA end.
2) There is a large Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese , Thai and other Asian immigrant population in SEA that would be connecting beyond HKG to other destinations.
3) CX seems to have a better product than DL; given a choice of flying between the 2; a lot of people (myself included) would prefer CX if the price difference is not too much.

They will confirm an order for 75 A380.

Does anyone know what routes Cathay will use their Airbus A350 on ?

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 36): Does anyone know what routes Cathay will use their Airbus A350 on ?

As of now, Gatwick is the only one. IIRC.

Quoting SCQ83 (Reply 35): It is almost funny that CX is losing so much money by hedging fuel being based in Hong Kong which proudly sells itself as one of the leading financial centres in Asia and the world. You would expect those "experts" would have known better.

That might be the problem. CX has solid financial books and thought they could use their credit to their advantage by securing long term contracts. No one knew oil would be dropping like it did. They gambled that their credit would work to their advantage and the opposite happened. Now they are losing so much money on the financial markets that they are struggling to stay in the black.

The talk of new routes and airplane orders are ridiculous when you read what is actually going on. They have some serious financial problems for the next few years that are going to impact their ability to grow. On top of that they have pilot issues limiting them from effectively using the fleet and potentially forcing them to delay airplane deliveries.

Quoting lhrnue (Reply 34): They will confirm an order for 75 A380.

Per the CAPA analysis, the LAST thing CX needs is to add A380s to its fleet. -ir

New animal meals?

Quoting SFOA380 (Reply 28): If SEA-HKG can't work from a DL hub why would it work for CX?

Same reason UA and CX can coexist rather well at EWR: different market segment being addressed.

DL's flight is aimed at connecting N.American pax to HKG via SEA.

CX's flight would be aimed at connecting S.E.Asian pax to SEA via HKG.

Neither has much onward flow traffic other than random interline, so would mostly be bringing terminating traffic to the point destination. Working against CX is that they have rather large aircraft to fill; working in CX's favor is that it has a far more powerful hub with which to do so, so that'll help.

Quoting res77W (Reply 21): This article while mentioning CX's consideration of 10 abreast in the 777 also says that BR is going 10 abreast as well. Did I miss that news?

It says that BR is having SOME of its 77W's retrofitted for 10 abreast. I sincerely hope that the ones that are retrofitted are for shorter routes; I dread flying JFK-TPE at 10 abreast. TPE-MNL (which last I knew they flew some days on A333's and some days on 77W's) would be tolerable. But seeing as JFK-TPE is probably close to the extreme range of the 77W I hope they conclude that there is no point putting in more seats as they may not be able to fill them without a fuel stop.

Quoting 747megatop (Reply 33): Because 1) CX has a bigger and better hub at the HKG end (with more Asian connections) as compared to what DL has at the SEA end. 2) There is a large Chinese, Indian, Vietnamese , Thai and other Asian immigrant population in SEA that would be connecting beyond HKG to other destinations. 3) CX seems to have a better product than DL; given a choice of flying between the 2; a lot of people (myself included) would prefer CX if the price difference is not too much.

Not to mention the significant AS feed on the SEA end; AS is a CX partner as well as a DL partner. The route would essentially be hub-hub rather than hub-spoke as it is with Delta.

This sounds more like a retrenchment than expansion. Cathay is truly one of the greatest airlines, and I hope they are able to handle this retrenchment well.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 8): BOS has been operating since last Summer. I think you mean CX is delaying expanding to daily service.

Nope, BOS has not started yet. Its supposed to start this May.

Quoting penguins (Reply 46): Nope, BOS has not started yet. Its supposed to start this May.

Strange given that CX Flight 812 landed in BOS from HKG today.
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/CPA812

Half this thread has been about delaying routes that already started.

Quoting KarelXWB (Reply 13): Story now on CAPA:

That story still seems to be just rumor re whatever they may be announcing. I don't see anything official from CX there.

Cathay Pacific set to rebrand Dragonair as "Cathay Dragon"

SCMP: Cathay Pacific set to rebrand Dragonair as ‘Cathay Dragon’ in bid to strengthen corporate identity

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 26 January, 2016, 10:49pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 27 January, 2016, 9:04am

Cathay Pacific set to rebrand Dragonair as ‘Cathay Dragon’ in bid to strengthen corporate identity
The idea to strengthen the sister airline’s association with the premium airline has been under discussion for a few months

Cathay Pacific group is likely to announce a rebranding of its Dragonair subsidiary as “Cathay Dragon” as the company seeks to strengthen its corporate identity.

The idea to strengthen the sister airline’s association with the premium airline Cathay Pacific Airways has been under discussion for a few months, sources familiar with the matter told the South China Morning Post.

Cathay’s manager of corporate communications, Carolyn Leung, declined to comment on whether the company had any rebranding plans for Dragonair.

“Following the successful launch of Cathay Pacific’s new brand ethos and refreshed corporate identity, we have been reviewing Dragonair’s overall brand proposition. We will provide more information as appropriate.”

The move would put an end to the Dragonair name which was founded by textile magnate Chow Kuang Piu in 1985. The airline was acquired by Cathay in 2006 following a major shareholding realignment involving Cathay’s parent Swire Pacific and the Air China Group. Dragonair, which has continued to operate as a separate airline within the group with its own visual identity featuring a red dragon, mainly flies to mainland China and elsewhere in Asia. Its fares are cheaper than Cathay. Sixty per cent of its passengers hold Hong Kong or mainland Chinese passports according to the company.

Will Horton, senior analyst with the Centre for Aviation, said renaming Dragonair “Cathay Dragon” would be a good move at the right time, as the Dragonair brand has weak passenger recognition beyond Greater China and lacked brand association with the larger Cathay group.

“What is critical is that it is not a full-on merger. Maintaining a separate regional unit will allow the group to leverage the stronger and global Cathay brand, while at the same time maintaining Dragonair’s traffic rights and lower operating cost.”

The rebranding is expected to affect the airline’s visual identity across the board – most notably the aircraft livery. But it is not expected to affect Dragonair’s holding of a separate air operator’s certificate, which allows the group to maximise traffic rights usage.

Horton said the move would follow a trend among Asian airline groups with multiple units starting to better leverage their brands.

“This comes as Asia’s airline families start to stitch together their airlines and become integrated groups. Asia’s ‘airline’ conglomerates have had many airline licences that they haven’t necessarily used cohesively.”

Since brand cohesion was inevitable, it is better to do it earlier than later when more passengers have to be re-educated,” he said. Additional reporting by Danny Lee

[Edited 2016-01-26 20:08:21]