Cathay Pacific Asia Miles - Light loads to HKG, so CX plays musical-planes!

Do you remember playing "musical chairs"? Well, same thing except it's with CX.

CX flights from North America are experiencing ridiculously low loads that CX are apt to cancel and replace flights if and whenever they deem fit to.

This interesting pairing came to light..

I flew out of YVR to JFK on Apr 6 on CX 888. Flight had under 100 passengers going to NY altogether.

On the return, CX advised me that ex-JFK, they only had 43 passengers! And ex-YVR, only another 30 planned. It apparently has been like that for the past few days since the SARS incidents. From HKG, YVR is to be a tech stop only.

Anyway, interesting pattern that day..APR 5.
CX 889 departed as scheduled from JFK with 43 passengers on board. Upon arrival in YVR, all passengers were offloaded and awaited to be transferred to the incoming CX829 from YYZ! The tech-stop was supposed to be an hour, and the flight was delayed by 4 hours.

The 747-400 on the originating CX889 flight was therefore duly parked at YVR.

On APR 7, CX cancelled CX838, the airbus flight from HKG and transferred all passengers to CX888. But there was CX839 from YVR. Yep. It was the same 747-400 that had been parked there since the 6th!

With very low loads, don't be surprised at such pre-emptive moves by CX. Hey! CX ground staff told me that even AC cancelled their AC7 flight on 5th April and transferred all their passengers to CX839 that day!

Wow. Makes good business sense for CX, assuming they can keep straight all the last-minute changes of plans. But it sounds awfully inconvenient for pax -- unexpected delays, loss of preferred seat assignments, loss of preferred equipment type. I would be an unhappy camper if I went from an on-time arrival in a NBC-equipped plane with an adjacent seat next to me to a four-hour-late arrival in OBC with no extra space.

Edited to fix typos.

[This message has been edited by bedelman (edited 04-06-2003).]

Hey Guy Betsy,

Thanks for the update..

What class were u on? Did the flight crew wear masks?

Based on your report, if I were on the YYZ flight... then I would not be affected.. Is that right? Only folks from the JFK woul have to now board the YYZ flight continuing to HK?

I realize that CX doesn't like to offer fare sales which may lead to false expectations on pricing by its customers. But unless they plan to cancel the flights entirely, overhead expenses from all these empty planes has got to hurt.

I really think some deep discount fare sales are needed now - just to fill the planes.

My instinct is to agree with Plato90s in calling for fare sales. But given the combination of the economy, war, and SARS, how big would the fare sales have to be in order to get pax on the planes? It seems to me quite possible that the discounts would have to be so big that the remaining revenue wouldn't cover marginal costs of flying the addl pax (ticketing, customer service, meals, fuel, I guess that's about it) once you consider the lost "inframarginal" revenue (some pax who would have flown at the current fares now get the benefit of the lower fares). Certainly that's the speculation in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum124/HTML/004689.html , and it rings true to me to a significant extent.

Also there are time issues here: If discount fares "need" (to retain some semblance of consistency with the overall fair structure; or to attract leisure travellers who can't drop everything to travel but rather need 1-3 weeks notice) to have an advance purchase requirement, but CX hopes and in fact believes that the SARS scare will be over quickly, it's all the more difficult to improve flight performance via fare sales.

In short, I think CX's problem here reflects the inherent difficulty of many once-a-day routes -- CX doesn't want to drop, say, SFO-HKG altogether (routing those pax through LAX or YVR) because pax would (rightly!) be mad; but it's hard to change to smaller aircraft (most planes don't have the range, and they have a limited inventory) and otherwise just not clear what to do. I don't envy CX's situation here!

have to disagree with Plato90s. No cheap fares with fill the planes when your health/life is at stake. CX is reactly with perfect business sense by reducing flights.

They will have to offer some good will if the crisis continues, e.g. extending tier levels. But lowering fares below cost is not the way to go.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by mhtaipei:
have to disagree with Plato90s. No cheap fares with fill the planes when your health/life is at stake. CX is reactly with perfect business sense by reducing flights.

They will have to offer some good will if the crisis continues, e.g. extending tier levels. But lowering fares below cost is not the way to go.</font>

I disagree. There was a recent Wall Street Journal article profiling travelers who travel to areas that most people are avoiding in order to pick up on bargains. It's like how there are vulture investors who jump in where all others have decided to bail.

After the Bali bombing, airlines like SQ and Garuda were offering incredible fares as well as hotel combination packages which were probably selling seats below cost. It worked to rebuild loads to some extent and made up for the loss of western tourists by filling seats/hotels with Asian tourists.

I'm merely suggesting that CX do something similar. To sell a seat below the incremental cost of providing it would require you price a JFK-HKG sector at the ~$200 level, and that's not what I'm suggesting. Offer discount award travel, mileage earning coach tickets at ~$700, and/or restricted business fares in the ~$1500 range. All of these are prices CX has offered before.

Sure there will be people who will look for bargains. But how many of them are there in the world. I'd think most people will not want to take the risks of going to HKG and get potentially infected.

Even if SARS disappears today, HKG will still suffer a slowdown in tourism for at least 3-6 months.

It may be premature to offer a sale right now. I think it's more beneficial to use a sale in conjunction with other promotions (like hotel and tour discounts) to attract tourists / business people after SARS is dealt with.

When CX first introduced the second daily
HKG LAX flight , they offered $US300 round
trip fares to fill up the afternoon flight..
Flights sure were full , and I got upgrades
twice during that period ,while doing my
mileage run.
Now , with a $300 fare , would people be
brave enough to forget about the SARS and
go on with their travel plans ?
I really don't think so . Again , hardcore
flyers still fly no matter what...I just
booked a trip via HKG on April 18th !!!

So with all the light loads where are all the cheap tickets. I would be willing to fly.

we were booked on CX 702 today
Auto messaging confirmed the flight yesterday afternoon
At 2030 last night I got an email that the flight was cancelled
There will be a lot of pixxed pax turning up at BLL Don Muang today

CX is cancelling flight CX838 to YVR and replacing it with CX828 - the YYZ flight. Yep, the flight will now stop in YVR instead of ANC and passengers to YVR will deplane there. Similarly, CX will fly CX829 from YYZ , stop in YVR to pick up more passengers and continue on to HKG.

No traffic rights (ie no passengers will be allowed to board YVR-YYZ-YVR) between the 2 Canadian cities though.

I'm taking 700 to HKG tomorrow, booked in Y, and did online check-in. It's 9 hours to go. Yet, I was the first one to do online check-in. I also noticed most seats are unassigned -- really most. 4 in the 1st compartment. The second compartment had two assigned and the last rows all assigned. The third compartment had most front rows assigned and none in the rest.

I don't blame if CX cancels this flight tomorrow, though I am connecting to JFK.

CX also cancelled one of the two afternoon direct flights from NRT to HKG two days ago. I saw no one checking in at NRT at 4 p.m. for CX flights that day.

It really is said.

I'm not hoping for cheap fares to HKG, but rather bargains to Bangkok and such. And the fare wouldn't even have to be painfully low for CX....if they offered even $500 to Bangkok, I'd book right away, assuming Aadvantage accrual. But it seems that CX has not lowered any of their fares. Maybe they'll offer the fare sales after SARS is a memory.

In as much as I want to fly with CX, my company has cancelled my 2 trips to Asia for this month (in J, to HKG/TPE/SIN).

If CX were to offer discounted J, I would take advantage of it and purchase J fares immediately to BKK for a vacation.

I've also get some award reservations lined up for May. I am trying very hard to fly CX even when my firm prohibits it.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Guy Betsy:
CX is cancelling flight CX838 to YVR and replacing it with CX828 - the YYZ flight. ... Similarly, CX will fly CX829 from YYZ , stop in YVR to pick up more passengers and continue on to HKG.

</font>

Details:
CX829 LEAVES YVR at 2.55am
CX889 LEAVEs YVR at 2:50am

I think it would be more sensible for CX to cancel the CX 888/889, and keep the afternoon flight. This would allow people in Vancouver the option of both Afternoon and the evening flight (through 829).

I guess there are near 0 business travellers from JFK to HKG anyways...

CX wants to keep JFK they wouldn't let it go so easily. CX is trying to reduce frequency and not the cities served in their network.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by fakecd:
Details:
CX829 LEAVES YVR at 2.55am
CX889 LEAVEs YVR at 2:50am

...it would be more sensible for CX to cancel the CX 888/889, and keep the afternoon flight...

I guess there are near 0 business travellers from JFK to HKG anyways...</font>

The fact is the afternoon flight leaving from YVR has always been heavily discounted through consolidators. My parents used to get great deals (~$3000CAD) on CX838/839 in J (where the travel agent will also upgrade a leg into F).

While on business, I would most definitely opt for the evening flights that arrive in HKG in the morning. That way, your schedule will be more flexible in Asia.

CX888/889 is EXTREMELY popular with business travelers that consolidators in YVR usually don't offer any specials in J/F. I believe even as of now, CX bookings reflect this. I remember meeting three gentlemen on CX873 who had to fly to SFO from JFK to fly to HKG in March due to overbooking on CX889.

Historically, CX888/889 have also been among the most profitable and oldest flights - I remember flying packed CX888/889 when I was 9 years old (then in the "New" Marco Polo class).




[This message has been edited by jkc22 (edited 04-16-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jkc22:
The fact is the afternoon flight leaving from YVR has always been heavily discounted through consolidators. My parents used to get great deals (~$3000CAD) on CX838/839 in J (where the travel agent will also upgrade a leg into F).

While on business, I would most definitely opt for the evening flights that arrive in HKG in the morning. That way, your schedule will be more flexible in Asia.

CX888/889 is EXTREMELY popular with business travelers that consolidators in YVR usually don't offer any specials in J/F. I believe even as of now, CX bookings reflect this. I remember meeting three gentlemen on CX873 who had to fly to SFO from JFK to fly to HKG in March due to overbooking on CX889.

Historically, CX888/889 have also been among the most profitable and oldest flights - I remember flying packed CX888/889 when I was 9 years old (then in the "New" Marco Polo class).

[This message has been edited by jkc22 (edited 04-16-2003).]</font>

FYI, CX888/889 HKG-YVR-JFK vv. only began service in July of 1996! (If you were 9 at that time, that would mean you are only 16? [I know that you are in your 20's right now!])

Consolidators NEVER offer discounts on CX838/839 and CX 888/889 in J. They only offer them on CX 838/839.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jkc22:
The fact is the afternoon flight leaving from YVR has always been heavily discounted through consolidators. My parents used to get great deals (~$3000CAD) on CX838/839 in J (where the travel agent will also upgrade a leg into F).

While on business, I would most definitely opt for the evening flights that arrive in HKG in the morning. That way, your schedule will be more flexible in Asia.

CX888/889 is EXTREMELY popular with business travelers that consolidators in YVR usually don't offer any specials in J/F. I believe even as of now, CX bookings reflect this. I remember meeting three gentlemen on CX873 who had to fly to SFO from JFK to fly to HKG in March due to overbooking on CX889.

Historically, CX888/889 have also been among the most profitable and oldest flights - I remember flying packed CX888/889 when I was 9 years old (then in the "New" Marco Polo class).


[This message has been edited by jkc22 (edited 04-16-2003).]</font>


i see you're in SFO. could you be talking about CX 838/839? i remember back in the late 1980s/early 1990s CX838/839 was HKG-YVR-SFO-YVR-HKG. CX 838 would arrive early in the morning in YVR then continue on to SFO then come bak to YVR in the early afternoon to pick up pax and arrive in HKG the next day in the evening. i believe around the time when 744s were delivered and when HKG-LAX non-stop commenced SFO was dropped.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jakob:
...i remember back in the late 1980s/early 1990s CX838/839 was HKG-YVR-SFO-YVR-HKG. CX 838 would arrive early in the morning in YVR then continue on to SFO then come bak to YVR in the early afternoon to pick up pax and arrive in HKG the next day in the evening...</font>

I stand corrected.

jkc22, if CX838/839 was so profitable back then how come CX cancelled the SFO extension? it was cancelled in the early 1990s and CX didn't restart operations to SFO until about 1/2 years ago.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by jakob:
CX didn't restart operations to SFO until about 1/2 years ago.</font>

Sorry? I have been flying CX two or three times a year on HKG-SFO direct since I arrived here in mid-1999 (i.e. 4 years ago).

[This message has been edited by christep (edited 04-19-2003).]

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by christep:
Sorry? I have been flying CX two or three times a year on HKG-SFO direct since I arrived here in mid-1999 (i.e. 4 years ago).

[This message has been edited by christep (edited 04-19-2003).]</font>


okay i wasn't quite sure when CX started non-stop to SFO but it is within the last 5 years but the YVR-SFO extension of CX838/839 was cancelled in the early 1990s. HKG-SFO non-stop didn't start until the late 1990s i believe so i am wondering if SFO was so profitable as someone has said in his previous post, why did CX cancel SFO and only restart operations there a number of years after.

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Originally posted by Guy Betsy:
Do you remember playing "musical chairs"? Well, same thing except it's with CX.
</font>

CX are also playing musical departure times with some of their flights.

for instance, the SIN-BKK flight has changed to 16:05, but i am told that it may be changed to around 9am in the near future. the departure time in their most recent timetable is 13:35.

[This message has been edited by miki13331 (edited 04-19-2003).]