Originally Posted by
why fly
NO CX has the wrong planes a 777-300 does not really have the range thats why AC uses the 777-200 LR. CX plane has more J and F seats and they would reduce weight.
However YYZ-HKG is the "longer" route and even more weight restrictions would be needed.
Interesting that CX didnt buy the 777-200lr?
I think CX buy 777-300ER primary for the balance between weight and load (and also cost to maintain). CX position 77W as a Boeing 744 / Airbus 346 replacement for America flight, 77L can never provide a close enough seats for 744. Its also silly to have a sub-fleet of 77L when you need a bunch of 77W for LAX / SFO / YVR
The problem probably only from JFK and YYZ as they essentially burn fuel to carry fuel. As remember 77W should have enough range to HKG YYZ nonstop when not factoring the headwind issue, which probably main reason for involuntary bumped. Personally I think CX do a good bet for NYC, you have 3 flights per day so you can easily bump leisure traveler to next. For YYZ the percentage of leisure traveler increase even higher so bumping people off is not as much an issue. Bumping people off should cost way less than a fuel stop
I think cargo load out of N. America is minimum while most of the cargo is HKG to N. America and the possibility being bump because of cargo is low.