An endorsement for Airbus from its longstanding customer:
"We are very heavily invested in the success of the A350. I will give Airbus a hat tip - they are doing a very good job with that. They say that they are going to be flying in 2013, and it looks to me like they will. And we are really looking forward to the airplane getting in the sky as a step towards delivery," says Slosar.
What puzzles me is if there are routes out there with the correct demand then why can't they just start it with the current fleet they have instead of waiting for the A350s?
Programs: JAL Mileage Bank, oneworld Sapphire, SPG Gold
Posts: 9,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by GE90-115B
What puzzles me is if there are routes out there with the correct demand then why can't they just start it with the current fleet they have instead of waiting for the A350s?
they don't have the correct plane to make it economical
__________________ Disclaimer: Not associated with any airlines or travel agencies
Vist my personal blog on JAL & follow me on Twitter.
Programs: Various bits of plastic with names of noble metals on them
Posts: 7,663
Quote:
Originally Posted by GE90-115B
What puzzles me is if there are routes out there with the correct demand then why can't they just start it with the current fleet they have instead of waiting for the A350s?
Because the A350 has better economics than the 77W.
I would think, for instance, that a 77W to someplace like SEA (to pull a potential CX NA destination out of a hat) is too much plane.
They can easily use 777/a340 to Zurich, Istanbul, Munich.
Dallas is perfect for 777 and as for demand, Korean air flies to way more american destinations, most people flying to china
cathay should have the advantage here considering dragonair is the largest international airlines serving china.
It is not wrong fleet, it is a conservative attitude of expanding
What puzzles me is if there are routes out there with the correct demand then why can't they just start it with the current fleet they have instead of waiting for the A350s?
Read between the lines, it's not the fleet but the conservative attitude CX has shown ever since SARS. There is no reason whatsoever other Asian Airlines such as Korean Airlines (like another poster said) can fly to more ports in North America than CX, especially with CX having the advantage of KA. No reason why Air India can fly to both EWR and JFK and CX is timid in opening up EWR, when I'm sure people are just screaming for CX to come and offer a flight. Especially with EVA moving to JFK there's a big vacuum in EWR that serves the huge Hong Kong/Taiwan/Chinese population in New Jersey and East Penn and Philadelphia.
Texas has huge number of people from Hong Kong/Taiwan/China and CX is timid in opening DFW route. There's absolutely no economic reasons why EWR/DFW shouldn't be open yesterday.
They can easily use 777/a340 to Zurich, Istanbul, Munich.
Dallas is perfect for 777 and as for demand, Korean air flies to way more american destinations, most people flying to china
cathay should have the advantage here considering dragonair is the largest international airlines serving china.
It is not wrong fleet, it is a conservative attitude of expanding
It's not just about the aircraft's range. It's about range, fuel consumption and capacity (including premium vs. discount demand). So it makes perfect sense to me that even if CX does have some aircraft from the current fleet sitting around at times when they could be on new routes, it would be better to let them sit than fly the route on an uneconomical plane.
It's not just about the aircraft's range. It's about range, fuel consumption and capacity (including premium vs. discount demand). So it makes perfect sense to me that even if CX does have some aircraft from the current fleet sitting around at times when they could be on new routes, it would be better to let them sit than fly the route on an uneconomical plane.
Which is our counter point, DFW/EWR has great demand and CX is ignoring them. Especially EWR - it is well known they serve proportionally more premium pax than economy pax for international routes.
DFW are full of people willing to fly to Hong Kong/Taipei/China
Read between the lines, it's not the fleet but the conservative attitude CX has shown ever since SARS. There is no reason whatsoever other Asian Airlines such as Korean Airlines (like another poster said) can fly to more ports in North America than CX, especially with CX having the advantage of KA. No reason why Air India can fly to both EWR and JFK and CX is timid in opening up EWR, when I'm sure people are just screaming for CX to come and offer a flight. Especially with EVA moving to JFK there's a big vacuum in EWR that serves the huge Hong Kong/Taiwan/Chinese population in New Jersey and East Penn and Philadelphia.
Texas has huge number of people from Hong Kong/Taiwan/China and CX is timid in opening DFW route. There's absolutely no economic reasons why EWR/DFW shouldn't be open yesterday.
Conservative network expansion sounds smart to me. Saying "Air India does it" is probably the quickest way to convince CX not to follow them, given Air India's abysmal financial condition.
If one wants to fly out of EWR, one already has a nonstop EWR-HKG option, on UA. That highlights how these discussions of route planning on FT (for any airline) all suffer the same basic flaw: Everyone wants their favored airline to tailor its route network to suit their specific needs as pax. Not gonna happen. CX doesn't have an interest in flying everywhere in the world. It wants to fly where it can make money. That may one day include EWR, but for now it means adding frequencies at JFK and/or opening other ports first. If you absolutely refuse to fly from anywhere other than EWR, CX is willing to give up on your business. The same goes for other routes we with they operated.
Read between the lines, it's not the fleet but the conservative attitude CX has shown ever since SARS. There is no reason whatsoever other Asian Airlines such as Korean Airlines (like another poster said) can fly to more ports in North America than CX, especially with CX having the advantage of KA.
actually, Seoul is a great hub for Korean Air due to its northern proximity along the route to/from North America. It draws HEAPS of mainland Chinese connecting traffic as a result....KO actually flies to a lot more mainland Chinese cities than KA, fyi. It's quite convenient, I think they're somewhere near 25 mainland cities now. I'm not a frequent flier on KO but it's impossible not to notice the absolute throngs of connecting mainland Chinese pax when visiting ICN
HKIA is just too far south and extra time wasted for a lot of Chinese connecting traffic. Seoul is right on the flight path. HKIA's great for SE Asia but not as good for NE Asia. A mainland Chinese traveler going to JFK ex-PVG starts out flying the "wrong" direction: a 2 hr 45 minute flight south PVG-HKG, then a HKG-JFK connection that is 16+ hours. PVG-Seoul goes northeast (2 hours) and then Seoul to JFK (<13 hours 45 mins). It's even more advantageous for Chinese pax living north of Shanghai.
Part of the reason why CX is percieved as being 'timid' is that CX does not and has not made consistent profits on their flights to the US for some time now. From FY07 - FY11, the only 2 years they made a profit flying to the US were FY09 and 10.
FY09 due to the increase in passenger load factors as a result of aircraft grounding as a response to the GFC and FY10 due to the sharp (but short-lived) upswing in the global economy that year.
This is the key reason why CX are so hesitant in opening up new destinations on the US mainland.
actually, Seoul is a great hub for Korean Air due to its northern proximity along the route to/from North America. It draws HEAPS of mainland Chinese connecting traffic as a result....KO actually flies to a lot more mainland Chinese cities than KA, fyi. It's quite convenient, I think they're somewhere near 25 mainland cities now. I'm not a frequent flier on KO but it's impossible not to notice the absolute throngs of connecting mainland Chinese pax when visiting ICN
HKIA is just too far south and extra time wasted for a lot of Chinese connecting traffic. Seoul is right on the flight path. HKIA's great for SE Asia but not as good for NE Asia. A mainland Chinese traveler going to JFK ex-PVG starts out flying the "wrong" direction: a 2 hr 45 minute flight south PVG-HKG, then a HKG-JFK connection that is 16+ hours. PVG-Seoul goes northeast (2 hours) and then Seoul to JFK (<13 hours 45 mins). It's even more advantageous for Chinese pax living north of Shanghai.
More mainland chinese??? KA capacity to china is double that of Korean air's for one
Cathay also has a far more sophisticated south east asian network that can support a flight to DFW, not to mention amazing connections to the caribbean
and latin america from DFW with American Airlines
granted Air India is a pathetic example,
But what about Singapore airlines-way more destinations to Europe, even A380 to Zurich
The chinese airlines expand internationally rapidly as well, inspite of not being in a market like Hong Kong that has a huge corporate base-largest in Asia in terms of daily numbers
Also the reason Emirates/Qatar have succeeded is multiple destinations with smart connections particularly to their focus market India, china should be cathay's
Even to chinese cities, Dragonair, does a pathetic job especially when Hong Kong airport is connected to more than 40 chinese cities and dragonair only flies to 20!!!!!
It about finding new routes/taking risks and heavy marketing something Middle Eastern carriers have done extremely well.
In India for example people are bombarded with he Emirates and Lufthansa brand on a daily basis.
Cathay Pacific-2 newspaper advertisements a month before launch of Bangalore and Chennai were the only adverts people saw.
Also Cathay posted a loss this year when most other carriers have made at least small profit so it is clear things need to change.
Think about it Cathay only flies to 50 cities!!!!!!!!!! they have been around that number since 1998 prior to the mass reductions of services
Cathay eyes new European and North American points with A350-900
The difference between CX and every other carrier you mention (except LH) is that CX doesn't enjoy any subsidies from its home government other than indirect goodies like restrictive entry to HKIA. Don't assume that just because EK are doing it, it's a good idea. that only means it's a good idea if you have a daddy warbucks government behind you.
CX is probably the most successful airline in the world as it has more than just survived the plethora of government aided airlines it competes with. Considering this it does make CX a superior carrier to all the other airlines coddled by their government.
I still think it should add more destinations to further out beat these government airlines and their affiliates, it will survive if it is aggressive.
