derek2010

CX should use 4-class 77W on some "busy" routes to Australia:
CX111/100, CX135/104, CX161/162

QRC3288

i guess my question is: "why"?

i was under the impression F yields to SYD are just not worth it. Especially given the opportunity cost of the 77H frame. Maybe CX has slack elsewhere in the system, to that I'm not sure. But CX cut F to SYD precisely because yields did not hold up. With the introduction of SQ's and EK's suites since then, and SQ fighting for its life in Australia trying to hold share against the Middle Eastern guys, I can't imagine how CX is going to be able to price F at a level that's profitable.

Somewhere else in this thread you can see the math for yourself, or just price on the CX website....ex-SYD F fares on EK/SQ/etc are in many cases the same price or cheaper than CX's ex-HKG J (!!) fares to 77H destinations. So you do the math. That's just simple opportunity cost. I cannot imagine CX will command fares considerably higher than SQ/EK. Why would an Australian person pay more to fly CX F via HKG to LHR when they could fly SQ suites via SIN for cheaper? To me, this makes zero sense. The 77H frame can literally pull down 20k USD round-trip cash fares in F from HKG-JFK.

to make it easier, take LHR. ex-HKG F fares are what, 12k USD for A? Let's use 12k USD to make it easy. So CX makes $12k for a passenger to fly HKG-LHR round trip on that 77H frame you recommend sending to Australia. 2 long sectors. Now, check out EK/SQ pricing from SYD to LHR those are also about 12k USD! 4 sectors. (as a side note....Australia is a great destination to start comparatively cheap cash F fares). There is no way CX is able to price over EK/SQ in that market and fill the plane. So $12k is the ceiling for CX SYD-HKG-LHR round-trip. 4 sectors. ~16-18 extra hours of flying time. It's not rocket science to see for connecting destinations where SQ/EK compete, CX cannot make the yields work. CX could get the identical amount just flying HKG-LHR without the Sydney sectors!

Now, maybe you or CX think there is enough point to point F demand to make it work. I don't think there is for the 8-9 hour flight, and yields didn't come through before, but maybe times have changed?

derek2010

these flights got lots of codeshare pax from BA, QR

QRC3288

but admittedly, that doesn't address the question about yield I raised. You know what yield is right? $12-13k USD appears to be the ceiling for ex-Australia F tickets. Go check the fares yourself. You would need to address that yield problem to explain to CX why they would consider F to Australia again, when CX can capture identical fares....aka significantly higher yields...flying ~half the distance HKG-LHR.

I'm just basing this on my familiarity with fares to/from HKG and Sydney. I could be mistaken but I've seen some very reasonable ex-SYD F fares to long-haul, 4 sector destinations like LHR (in the sense that F fares are ever "reasonable"). I was pricing SYD-LHR and for about 12-13k USD you can get a full fare F ticket. Put that in perspective, I've paid nearly that amount on a full fare J ticket on CX HKG-JFK, which is a.) J class, not F class, and b.) considerably less distance and fuel burn.

JeCCo

http://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-pacif...n=home-flipper

2nd 77G flight for Sydney on CX100/101 from Oct 1 onwards.

freakinflyer001

Long overdue, so not really surprised about the second 77W flight

MEL should get at least 1 daily if a/c rotation permits

QRC3288

wow, that's awesome news for OZ travelers.

yohy?!

this thread should be a sticky for newcomers to show them how accurate some of the speculation is on FT from the armchair!

m0hamed

CX website shows my CX101 flight in Nov as 333 but QF website showing 77W. No longer able to access seat selection, either. Should I call CX?

LHR/MEL/Europe FF

Might be worth waiting a bit if they are still loading the change of aircraft and moving seating across.

Scott218

The flights with the 777-300ER has been confirmed as CX100/CX101 starting October 1, 2014. Further discussion on how premium economy is doing really well the moving to the 777-300ER gains more capacity in this class.
http://www.experiencetheskies.com/ai...ing-777-300er/

QRC3288

i was skeptical before the announcement, but glad to see it. I've heard the loads on CX139/140 are doing well, and if you're fly in J class the wider bed is bigger. I've flown considerably on both 33G and 77W J class, and the 77W seat itself just has a more spacious feel. 33G is perfectly fine but the 77W is a nicer feeling in my opinion. Nice upgrade for OZ pax as well as CX.

It's incredible how much capacity CX has to OZ versus what comes from the Australian side

Kachjc

The same can be said for most long-haul to city state markets SQ/EK etc
even the QF capacity to NA is far greater than reverse...

derek2010

and i think the 33G freed from those routes that uses 77G can add more frequency to these routes:
HKG-BNE (making 2 daily, with 4 weekly passing CNS)
HKG-ADL (making 1 daily)
HKG-PER (making 2 daily)

derek2010

Also, which route u think will become the next route to use 77G?
1. CX135/134
2. CX105/104
3. CX163/178
4. CX111/110

One concern of using 77G to Australia is that, how CX solved the engineering problem when the aircraft is parking at Australia?