Counterpointing

Just flew CAN-LAX J on CZ.

Was the Seat better than CX...Nope.

Was the IFE better than CX...Nope.

Was the service better than CX...I would say they are trying.

Did I save 3k USD...Yep.

I guess I will soon lose my Gold status.

Rivarix

That's what CX is doing but it doesn't appear to be working. As others mentioned above, low fare is not the key for CX. CX load factor is already relatively high. The key is to continue convincing mid-range flyers to pay a premium (over other airlines) so CX can maintain the frequencies demanded by high-paying pax.

I have a couple of co-workers like that. Whether it is ME3 (don't like middle eastern food), NH (nothing to do at NRT while transiting for 3 hr), UA (don't like their Y seats), CI (it's China Airlines ...) or mainland carriers (don't like their FAs), they literally find fault in every airline but CX (to the point where I would say ... you do realize that I used to fly CX to Asia regularly, right?).

They fly Y and they are willing to pay a premium to fly CX to HKG. They are also very happy that they can redeem their AM miles for buffet vouchers ...

People like them and your dad are the reason why CX is only bleeding slowly (instead of dying immediately).

eponymous_coward

Most people care FAR more about price, available nonstop and schedule than service. Ryanair. Air Asia and Southwest would be tiny airlines or out of business otherwise.

The factors that are impacting CX are impacting everyone. SQ's performance is below their LCC cousins Tigerair and Scoot these days if you look at the financial statements.

So I am not sure "just cut some back office staff and lavish hoodies on premium class and frequent flyers" is going to work. SQ is not a low-end experience in premium classes, yet they are not immune to lower cost competition...

Cathay Dragon 666

And MOST OTHER people care far more about service then price. Your example is like quoting the success of cheap eatery, but that doesn't mean people only want to eat cheaply, many other people like to spend more to eat quality food. Just like there are people out there that are willing to spend more to fly quality airline.

Cathay's problem was never yield and mid-range spending. Cathay's problem was fuel hedging. But yet they killed themselves by degrading both MPO tier benefits, making it harder to make GO/DM, and reduce overall quality of airline. Lowest fares to basement levels won't save them.

percysmith

Cheap is not the correct analogy, convenience is.

It's not necessarily cheapest but sometimes the best restaurant you that has a table for you for the amount of time you want to eat.

Aus106080

[QUOTE=Cathay Dragon far more about service then price. Your example is like quoting the success of cheap eatery, but that doesn't mean people only want to eat cheaply, many other people like to spend more to eat quality food. Just like there are people out there that are willing to spend more to fly quality airline.

Cathay's problem was never yield and mid-range spending. Cathay's problem was fuel hedging. But yet they killed themselves by degrading both MPO tier benefits, making it harder to make GO/DM, and reduce overall quality of airline. Lowest fares to basement levels won't save them.[/QUOTE]
https://qz.com/978394/warren-buffett-airlines-are-becoming-cattle-cars-because-thats-what-we-want/

Oh, but buffett does not agree and and IATA research also states that only 16% of passengers think service is more important.

If fuel hedge is the main problem for cx, cx management should be very happy as fuel hedge will be no longer a problem after less than 24 months.

Nicc HK

Also in my industry the ones who buy cheapest are the most likely to change supplier most. Loyalty is only as long as the period of service, for such clients.

Cost is a factor for many flyers (especially the once/twice pa), but not every flyer, and I would argue cost is a component of the convenience factor for the most frequent.

Others who pay more expect more, and with CX as an ex-DM PEY/Y flyer my quid pro quo for paying higher fares was the DM benefits, i.e. the check-in fast tracks, better seats, blocked seats, and so on, which made the trip more pleasant (and PEY/Y for the number of trips is NOT fun) smoothed my business and limited the time I needed to spend at airports. With the major plus that whenever things went pear shaped I would be near the top of the list for getting sorted out.

I willingly (and now with regret) paid the extra dollars for that.

So when CX removed the incentives, I removed my business.

Made no sense when I can get top tier elsewhere, save money, now see what other carriers provide.
Take those benefits away and CX has no value to me.

Ausriver

Instead of flying CX PEY & Y, I now fly MH J between Asia and Australia for about the same price. I should say thank you CX for changing the MPC program to forced me not flying with them. I still get to keep CX DM with ease, it's just a program that I'm more familiar with, and I don't see any value with MH enrich points as their D/Z fare already dead cheap.

However I'm not sure how much profit CX is really making out of me when I fly with someone else but credit to CX.

Maxxis

Same here. More often than not I can find J on MU or CA for TPE to DXB for TWD 45K or less, while on CX is 95K. Of course I didn't mind transferring in PEK/CKG/PVG. CX J used to be way ahead of mainland carriers in terms of service and hard product, now the gap is rapidly closing.

Plus I get to fly J with CX Y prices, why not? I'll take a mainland J over CX Y anyday.

Cathay Dragon 666

Trying my best to take a family vacation to BKK, HKG, and TPE. Cathay, surprise surprise, only offers J fares for their C seats. Yep, thanks for driving me and my family away from flying you Cathay, again.

percysmith

Starting from where? Surely if you're starting from the US or the PRC the J fare cannot exceed three digits...

jckl

Used to fly CX to LHR twice a year for school and a few regional to BKK/TPE/JPN during holidays.

For the past few years though, switched all my long haul flying to QR and joined QRPC. All my regional flying is now on JL/TG/BR, anything but CX/KA. The same pattern of change also happens to many of my friends/colleagues.

Once you fly QR you never look back on CX. QR cabins are so well staffed (8vs6 in Y on A350, 3 crew to 22 pax on 787 J) and I always get a good banter from them . Some may say QR crew are robotic or impersonal, but that's never been the case if you speak English. They're always up for a chat unlike the CX crew which are running around like headless chicken. QR also have amenity kits and superior meals in Y, DOD and PJ in overnight J.

Why bother flying CX when other carriers have better offering at lower prices? The only market CX maybe winning is the trans-pac nonstop.

Aus106080

Time matters also.
For flying to Europe, taking QR (or other middle east carriers) requires at least extra 8 hours traveling time. It means you need to apply one more annual leave.

Ausriver

Yes, time does matter. When I fly between MH instead of CX, it means I'm looking at 5-8 extra hours each way. CX has 4 daily to SYD vs MH 2, CX & KA has more than 10 to PVG vs MH 2. However for similar price, MH got flat bed with satay and unlimited price of luggage also through in 170 CX tp. CX got me Y seat with good chance of opup to PEY and only 80 cp.

I think most of us would look for service rather than direct flights. I think there are 3 or 4 direct flights between PVG and SYD that I never tried. Maybe if I switched to QF then I'll stick to QF/MU for direct flights

Enhancements

It can be as short as a 5hr delta.

The frequency more than makes up for it for longhaul. Leaving at 7pm vs 12am is often negligible (certainly not a day's leave worth), and there's also the less optimal timings ex-EU that CX has for single-frequency flights.

OTOH CX has lost its appeal of connecting in Asia now that other airlines have increased point to point schedules at reasonable prices. Out of KUL, PVG/TPE/TYO have seen much increased service and the possibility of night departures (with KA in this case, you *would* always have to take one extra day of leave).