|
Originally Posted by jumbojet19920711
(Post 17673217)
The longest runway at BOS is 10000ft long, which isn't quite enough for a fully loaded 747/777 bound for Asia. At SFO, especially during the winter when they really load those 747s up with fuel due to strong headwinds, most of the flights I've been on have used up almost all of the 11000ft runway they have there (28R).
|
Originally Posted by QRC3288
(Post 17671979)
While I agree you definitely have the # of bodies for that amount of service, my suspicion is the biggest problem with 3-4 weekly service is you significantly dent premium demand, which is needed to make that load profitable. Problem is business travelers demand frequency....so you'd still probably have the situation of the premium BOS travelers connecting via YYZ, JFK or ORD. The meeting in HK isn't going to wait because your BOS-HKG flight doesn't go today and tomorrow.
|
Originally Posted by m.y
(Post 17673853)
KE flies to ATL, DFW, SEA, YYZ and a few European destinations with less than daily frequency and it is working for them. Business travelers who need to go to HKG on the days where flight don't operate can connect in JFK or ORD. Although flying to a destination on a daily basis has benefits, CX might be missing some opportunities where daily service isn't possible at the start while KE is making inroad in secondary cities in North America and Europe. Even CA has more destinations in EU than CX. CX's strategy is similar to AA's strategy of feeding passengers to OW hubs at LHR and NRT at a time when their competitors are over flying the hubs.
|
Originally Posted by m.y
(Post 17673853)
KE flies to ATL, DFW, SEA, YYZ and a few European destinations with less than daily frequency and it is working for them. Business travelers who need to go to HKG on the days where flight don't operate can connect in JFK or ORD. Although flying to a destination on a daily basis has benefits, CX might be missing some opportunities where daily service isn't possible at the start while KE is making inroad in secondary cities in North America and Europe. Even CA has more destinations in EU than CX. CX's strategy is similar to AA's strategy of feeding passengers to OW hubs at LHR and NRT at a time when their competitors are over flying the hubs.
1.) KE I'm fairly certain has vastly lagged CX in terms of profitability, and 2.) KE incorporates different business model than CX that brings it head to head with CA, not CX. My thinking for #2 is this: KE's North American flights are flown heavily by connecting northern mainland Chinese. It's not an accident that KE flies to over TWENTY destinations in mainland China! They then aggregate that traffic and feed it to smaller North American cities like the ones you mention. The network effect creates demand, like a small scale Asian version of the Middle Eastern airlines. Why does KE they do that? In my view, it's because Seoul simply isn't the same scale of a financial/trading hub that Hong Kong is. Hong Kong - with Cathay the airline beneficiary - is a destination city for most all deep-pocketed business travelers out of New York and other NA cities. Korean has to serve a different niche to stay relevant, since Seoul just doesn't have the premium loads going there as a final destination that HK does. As long as China stays relevant, wealthy finance folks, lawyers, auditors, exporters, etc. etc. are going to have to fly to Hong Kong. CX doesn't need to go out of their way to service them by flying to smaller North American cities, as brutal as that sounds. They will go out of their way to connect in ORD, SFO, LAX, whatever. KE, with its model to North America heavily focused on connecting traffic, does. So back to EWR, I guess the point is this...if CX still sees demand for even more capacity to existing destinations (like NYC) with proven premium loads, why not just increase service to those places instead of adding 3-4x weekly services to 2nd-tier or untested destinations? I don't think CX actually sees KE as a major competitor, ironically I think the combined UA/Continental is a far greater threat to Cathay's North American loads than KE is. |
The EWR info is pulled out of the CX worldwide airports page under NEW YORK - any reason? Second thoughts? any updates on whether this is actually happening?
|
Yeah, I'd really like to know when this flight will be loaded into the system. Mainly so I can, ah, get a jump on booking some rewards with AA/BA miles.
|
Originally Posted by QRC3288
(Post 17679339)
It's a fair point about KE, but I guess I'd counter with two of my own:
1.) KE I'm fairly certain has vastly lagged CX in terms of profitability, and 2.) KE incorporates different business model than CX that brings it head to head with CA, not CX. My thinking for #2 is this: KE's North American flights are flown heavily by connecting northern mainland Chinese. It's not an accident that KE flies to over TWENTY destinations in mainland China! They then aggregate that traffic and feed it to smaller North American cities like the ones you mention. The network effect creates demand, like a small scale Asian version of the Middle Eastern airlines. Why does KE they do that? In my view, it's because Seoul simply isn't the same scale of a financial/trading hub that Hong Kong is. Hong Kong - with Cathay the airline beneficiary - is a destination city for most all deep-pocketed business travelers out of New York and other NA cities. Korean has to serve a different niche to stay relevant, since Seoul just doesn't have the premium loads going there as a final destination that HK does. As long as China stays relevant, wealthy finance folks, lawyers, auditors, exporters, etc. etc. are going to have to fly to Hong Kong. CX doesn't need to go out of their way to service them by flying to smaller North American cities, as brutal as that sounds. They will go out of their way to connect in ORD, SFO, LAX, whatever. KE, with its model to North America heavily focused on connecting traffic, does. So back to EWR, I guess the point is this...if CX still sees demand for even more capacity to existing destinations (like NYC) with proven premium loads, why not just increase service to those places instead of adding 3-4x weekly services to 2nd-tier or untested destinations? I don't think CX actually sees KE as a major competitor, ironically I think the combined UA/Continental is a far greater threat to Cathay's North American loads than KE is. |
Any news on EWR? Will it go ahead as rumoured in May, or perhaps not?
|
Originally Posted by CX828
(Post 17980168)
Any news on EWR? Will it go ahead as rumoured in May, or perhaps not?
|
Originally Posted by GE90-115B
(Post 17980439)
That's still on the agenda, but I heard that it depends on the US economy in the coming months.
|
Originally Posted by CX828
(Post 17980168)
Any news on EWR? Will it go ahead as rumoured in May, or perhaps not?
|
If it has been shelved, thats so typical of CX when it comes to new destinations. Last minute pull out!
Perhaps thats why we LHR gets a daily 77W from April. The aicraft supposed to be doing EWR? |
Originally Posted by Top of climb
(Post 17981058)
It's been shelved.
What a dumb move. |
Originally Posted by Cathay Boy
(Post 17983439)
One major mistake by CX. When I told people about CX coming to EWR 100% of frequent East Asian travelers said they would jump from Continental to CX right away. Especially with the merger. Not sure what kind of study CX has done (if any), but from what I'm told Continental flights to HKG are very strong and you know with the CX brand it will only be stronger.
What a dumb move. |
I've heard that they will postpone until July instead of May
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:43 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.