|
Originally Posted by Kachjc
(Post 24633772)
EXCEPT
AA does not have the connectivity CX has at Dallas or the Cargo network CX has same with ATL etc... |
Originally Posted by djday
(Post 24633917)
Do you mind clarifying your point on connectivity or lack thereof at DFW or ATL? AA and DL have major hubs there, respectively.
Sure. CX has connectivity at HKG and AA has connectivity at DFW. That being said, I am willing to be big bucks that the connectivity at the AA end (pretty much every city in the eastern half of the US - BOS, WAS, MIA, ATL, STL, MSP, etc) to HK is a lot more valuable than the traffic from, say, BKK, KUL, SIN, MNL, TPE to DFW. And the same goes for ATL. |
Originally Posted by hkflyer2014
(Post 24633479)
Well, EK loses a lot of money whereas CX is profitable. Clarke is in the enviable position of being able to add destinations with the main concern to increase top line as opposed to increase bottom line. (It helps when you have sovereign money behind you.)
I think CX would do well with a Mexico City flight. I know a lot of people in China flying there and forced to transit Tokyo since can't transit LA without a US Transit Visa which is just as difficult to obtain as a standard visa for mainlanders. They fly to both Madrid (two 77W daily) and Barcelona (daily A380). Each of the two big Spanish cities (MAD and BCN) is a rather small market for a given Asian airline like CX. SQ flies to BCN (I think 4 weekly), but not sure that it is very successful. On the other hand EK can collect pax all over Asia and Australia to fly them to both MAD and BCN. |
Originally Posted by DWFI
(Post 24633975)
It's meant to be the other way around of course.
Sure. CX has connectivity at HKG and AA has connectivity at DFW. That being said, I am willing to be big bucks that the connectivity at the AA end (pretty much every city in the eastern half of the US - BOS, WAS, MIA, ATL, STL, MSP, etc) to HK is a lot more valuable than the traffic from, say, BKK, KUL, SIN, MNL, TPE to DFW. And the same goes for ATL. DFW to MIA is more valuable than HKG-TPE/HKG-SIN?!! I am willing to bet big bucks as well the fact is people fly to HKG to connect to Asia more than people flying to Dallas to get to HKG and CX controls more of the former... why do you think UA fails to compete against CX not even a single LAX flight... CX would do much better than AA if they launched it just like the ME3 do much better to the US than the US carriers do to the ME3... same situation for HKG also EK makes more money than CX and rightly so CX actively gifts markets to competitors by not even flying to them... |
Originally Posted by Kachjc
(Post 24634278)
really?
DFW to MIA is more valuable than HKG-TPE/HKG-SIN?!! I am willing to bet big bucks as well the fact is people fly to HKG to connect to Asia more than people flying to Dallas to get to HKG and CX controls more of the former... |
Where would the stop be for a MIA service? Toronto?
|
Originally Posted by Kachjc
(Post 24634278)
also EK makes more money than CX and rightly so CX actively gifts markets to competitors by not even flying to them... |
To say that CX gifts markets to competitors...I don't think that's true. I think they had staff members (who in turn suggest to Slosar or Chu), in the past who focused on frequency. QF and CX aren't exactly chummy.
Why does EK seem to be able to make HKG work with four daily flights whereas CX only has two daily? EK can get you to a lot of places one stop. CX relies heavily on Filipino and Indonesian passengers to DXB. CX finally realizes that it has to add destinations to thinner routes and cooperate with partners (particularly with QR). It takes time to add destinations and to lay all the ground work. You look at airlines like EY and SK that added HKG. They announced it 10 months prior. Finding the ground staff, caterers, etc. It's a time consuming process. |
Originally Posted by Isochronous
(Post 24646039)
Where would the stop be for a MIA service? Toronto?
|
HKG-MIA is 7812 nm; which can be done on a A35J.
|
Originally Posted by kaka
(Post 24633558)
[SIZE=1]
Flying TO isnt the problem- flyibg FROM mex is tge problem... |
Originally Posted by gemini573
(Post 24648530)
To say that CX gifts markets to competitors...I don't think that's true. I think they had staff members (who in turn suggest to Slosar or Chu), in the past who focused on frequency. QF and CX aren't exactly chummy.
Why does EK seem to be able to make HKG work with four daily flights whereas CX only has two daily? EK can get you to a lot of places one stop. CX relies heavily on Filipino and Indonesian passengers to DXB. CX finally realizes that it has to add destinations to thinner routes and cooperate with partners (particularly with QR). It takes time to add destinations and to lay all the ground work. You look at airlines like EY and SK that added HKG. They announced it 10 months prior. Finding the ground staff, caterers, etc. It's a time consuming process. an airline almost half as old as CX and with a smaller local market. Zurich is an example of a city CX basically gifted to competitors.... Slosar etc focused on frequency? really? EK flies 8 daily to LHR CX? what about other cities... nothing. and no AA operating the flight is NOT the same thing... AA cannot offer competitive rates etc to other Asian cities from the US DFW is another market CX has gifted. Munich Seattle etc Pity HK airlines had a delay in expansion else CX would have been forced to expand. |
Originally Posted by Cathay Boy
(Post 24646228)
Trying to stay friendly to people you partner with at OW? Then again CX do fly a ton to London and BA doesn't seem to mind... or do they?
does not mind because CX will always be seen as a their little brother from the East... take a look at BA's LHR hub vs CX at HKG HKG is approaching LHR in passengers travelled yet BA is way larger, more capacity/greater market share CX? only 25% - gifting markets to competitors. |
Sorry what's 25%?
I've been wondering what's the basis of BA adopting CX as its new BFF in an apparent combined fight to send QF to the dark ages for its ONS with EK |
Originally Posted by Kachjc
(Post 24649514)
does not seem to take EK much time to add destinations
an airline almost half as old as CX and with a smaller local market. Zurich is an example of a city CX basically gifted to competitors.... Slosar etc focused on frequency? really? EK flies 8 daily to LHR CX? what about other cities... nothing. and no AA operating the flight is NOT the same thing... AA cannot offer competitive rates etc to other Asian cities from the US DFW is another market CX has gifted. Munich Seattle etc Pity HK airlines had a delay in expansion else CX would have been forced to expand. On the other hand, when CX has 50 something 77Ws on order and REPLACING 744s, you're going to have a tougher time expanding. The priority is to get rid of those gas guzzling aircraft first and replace them with newer aircraft. Look at JL. When they went through their restructuring. Got rid of their 744s. Replaced them with 788s and 77Ws, and then they started to expand to places like HEL, BOS, and SAN. Did I think CX dropped the ball when they should of replaced their aging 744s earlier and not expanding? Yes, and the team they have now is trying to expand the network. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:40 am. |
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.