Originally Posted by
pbarnette
Someone should tell CX that HKG routes are generally profitable.
CX lost money because of being a gambling addict - fuel hedging.
Originally Posted by
ClipperDelta
Due to increased costs without sufficient corresponding increases in revenue in the Hong Kong market, the company determined that the value of its Hong Kong routes had been impaired.
It is extremely difficult to know what has exactly happened for UA to have this.
But FWIW, based on this, it did not sound like UA has lost actual money on this route. Instead, UA simply wrote off some book values.
Originally Posted by
pbarnette
Significant TPAC overcapacity explains it pretty well to me.
I agree. But the overcapacity are associated with CX.
Originally Posted by
flyerCO
Can I ask in what respect you view them as different? (Other then KA use CX J seat for F and KL 777 J style for J)
For starter, when CX decides not to merge the DragonAir brand into Cathay Pacific but rename it to Cathay Dragon, it is, at least, to CX that, they are different.