Originally Posted by
Flyingfox
English please.
It takes too long to decipher the jibberish that you've written. At least make an effort.
I thought my english were clear enough but here's for the less sharp crowd reader's digest:
1) to have 77W serving Australia route that's exclusively served by 33G, CX would require a new set of maintenance crew that's qualified for 77W, spare parts, training etc that's based in OZ. That's dead cost on CX.
2) I agree with OP that 77W for Australia because 33G are always full. But I am making a point that "full flight" do not neccessarily make a "profitable" flight. Thus my comment about yield. I don't have a firm data but it seems ex TPE, ex SGN, and ex-MNL flight to SYD constitute a meaningful sum of J cabin paying 50% less than what a ex-HK J would cost. Discussed many times..
3) so if CX has problem that flights are always full, they can increase ticket prices to discourage the marginal consumer at lower part of the curve - this increases (maybe) yield (i.e. profit margin, in plain english) and increases availability for those willing to pay the fare
4) following original MH disaster i've heard anactodal evidiences from both local Australian reservation agenst and airport staff, that people who used to fly on MH are all switching to CX. I do not have scientific evidences to confirm this but make sense for same ONEWORLD group, i.e. CX to pick up the demand of people no longer willing to fly MH.
5) or cheap CX fares offered in Mainland china as feeder traffic from domestic china to Australia. I doubt these tickets are that profitable... so make them more expensive... marginal consumer will drop out of CX and fly China Eastern or whatever CH domestic career that flys to Australia.
Q.E.D.