This thread is about the littlest of things. Curiosity has the best of me as I board yet another flight.

Certainly, there is some logic to CX's flight numbers that I've figured out. For example, Australia and New Zealand flights are in the 100's. Europe flights inc appear previously to be all 200's, until Manchester and Zurich came along (and Dusseldorf comes along), which are the only European flights in the 300's. So MAN, ZRH and DUS are lumped alongside PVG and PEK, which are the only 300's I can think of and something of an odd lot. Some Taiwan and Korea are 400's, Japan and remaining Taiwan flights are the 500's, Indian subcontinent + Maldives + some Middle East are the 600's, remaining Middle East + SE Asia (ex Philippines) + JNB lumped in are the 700s, North America flights are 800's, Philippines flights are 900's.

So there is some logic, and also some exceptions. Curious about why, for example CX is now using the 300's for additional Europe flights when there are so many open #s in the 200's? Of course, there appears some attempt at keeping the "10"'s place open for a specific city (or perhaps country?), like AMS is 270/271, FCO is 292/293, etc. But, even this logic doesn't perfectly follow...eg MXP is 232/233, whereas a few LHR flights are also 23X (238 and 239 I believe?). Why is Europe now 300's?

And I'm curious why the new SFO flight got 892/893, instead of 874/875 876/877? (the legacy SFO flight #s are 870, 872, 873 and 879).

Same question about LAX as well, why the newest LAX flight got 898/897? While the old flight #s were 880, 881, 882, 883, 884 and 885, with 886 and 887. Why not use those?

Being honest, this isn't really not relevant to a whole lot...except my curiosity!

With CX's expansion, particularly with the intro of the A350s, I have to imagine it won't be too long before whatever logic there was goes out the window, unless there is some type of rejuggling of the flight #s. Any thoughts welcome.