Originally Posted by ContinentalFan
...I have noticed a lot of comments about GUM as an option--even a gateway to the mainland. I don't know if Hawaii is another option.
GUM relative southern location may prohibit it from becoming an Asian/Pacific gateway (similar to UA/NW at NRT) fed by connections from the US. Moreover, as we have observed, CO's recent style is just to overfly the hubs with non-stop offerings from IAH, EWR and CLE.
I certainly hope CO does choose to grow GUM (as was recently discussed on another thread) but I'd suspect growth would come to meet O/D traffic vis-à-vis connecting traffic from the states.
Originally Posted by ContinentalFan
My real thought is for CO to think outside the box and build up an airport like LAX. Here's the idea.
Many would say CO did think outside the box with sending the 757's TATL.
Originally Posted by ContinentalFan
B777/787 #1
EWR/HKG 1500/1850
HKG/LAX 2030/1400
LAX/LGW 1530/0945
LGW/EWR 1145/1445
******************
B777/787 #2
LAX/HKG 0020/0615
HKG/EWR 1025/1405
UA used to offer HKG-LAX flight but pulled it due to lack of demand. Moreover, CA offers two non-stops between the markets. Secondly, does CO have the rights to fly to LGW from LAX? If they do, they'll have to compete against multiple flights from VS, BA, AA and UA.
Originally Posted by ContinentalFan
I think that the B777 spends too much idle time in HKG. CO should think of opening a route to a different city in North America.
You
think it spends to much time in HKG?
Did it ever cross your mind that perhaps this is when CO sends the birds off for the MX? Just because the plane is not in the air does not mean it is sitting on a lonely tarmac somewhere waiting to gorge itself on passengers again.
Originally Posted by ContinentalFan
I think LAX is a good choice: (i) there's a lot of originating traffic and (ii) it's somewhat underserved by ST. The only thing militating against LAX is, apparently, the CEO, who has told FTer's that a hub in LAX is not an option.
LAX is already served by CA on that route, LAX-HKG used to be serviced by UA until they dropped it and finally LAX and HNL used to be a hub for CO until it was dropped.
Those 777's - and to a lesser extent 787's - are expensive machines to hurl through the air. Perhaps one reason they sit for so long at HKG (or PEK, EZE, GIG, etc.) is that any incremental revenue gained through more service would not offset the incremental cost associated with operating the flight (to say nothing of performing MX or possessing the necessary rights to operate the flight). The reason there's no hub/gateway at LAX is the same reason there's none at GUM: it's just not believed to be economically viable by the current administration.