|
Originally Posted by marcommm
(Post 30248020)
IMO CX/KA and HKIA are largely influencing each other. When CX/KA does well, HKIA is benefited as a result of that, vice versa. I don’t see why the building of the third runway is subsidizing CX/KA. The third runway is not gonna be used exclusively by CX/KA.
- CX has better economics than its competitors for long haul routes - CX has worse economics than its competitors for some short-haul markets, but its downside is constrained by bilaterals --- If HX/UO fails, even better for CX on the bilaterals. |
Originally Posted by percysmith
(Post 30247915)
I was looking at Japanese airports too (thinking about Jetstar Japan and Airasia Japan), thinking they'd all be Govt controlled. But I was wrong http://www.kansai-airports.co.jp/en/...aiairports.pdf
It's the usage of Consolidated Surplus coupled with anti-competitive policies that makes it a subsidy. I have no idea how Singapore funds its airport expansion, they could have funded it out of Singapore Consolidated Surplus or Temasek for all I care. But they let an Australian airline set up shop there. undoubtedly, CX gets a lot of benefit from hk aviation policy as a de facto flag carrier like" 1 route 1 carrier". Dragonair finally become subsidary of CX. But it is quite common in 1980s. British government project BA too. However, it does not mean the government has subsidise the carrier. AA use its surplus to fund the construction is fine and not a type.of subsidy. After 1997 handover, there is still new carrier set up and operate in HK. Cx is a international carrier and it must face competition.CX cannot be monopoly. |
Originally Posted by percysmith
(Post 30247915)
I was looking at Japanese airports too (thinking about Jetstar Japan and Airasia Japan), thinking they'd all be Govt controlled. But I was wrong http://www.kansai-airports.co.jp/en/...aiairports.pdf
It's the usage of Consolidated Surplus coupled with anti-competitive policies that makes it a subsidy. I have no idea how Singapore funds its airport expansion, they could have funded it out of Singapore Consolidated Surplus or Temasek for all I care. But they let an Australian airline set up shop there. undoubtedly, CX gets a lot of benefit from hk aviation policy as a de facto flag carrier like" 1 route 1 carrier". Dragonair finally become subsidary of CX. But it is quite common in 1980s. British government project BA too. However, it does not mean the government has subsidise the carrier. AA use its surplus to fund the construction is fine and not a type.of subsidy. After 1997 handover, there is still new carrier set up and operate in HK. Cx is a international carrier and it must face competition.CX cannot be monopoly. |
Originally Posted by Aus106080
(Post 30248333)
But it doesn't change the fact that majority of airport is owned by government.
Originally Posted by Aus106080
(Post 30248333)
But it is quite common in 1980s. British government project BA too.
Originally Posted by Aus106080
(Post 30248333)
After 1997 handover, there is still new carrier set up and operate in HK.
Originally Posted by Aus106080
(Post 30248333)
Cx is a international carrier and it must face competition.CX cannot be monopoly.
Don't get me wrong - CX/KA is not a regulated monopoly to the extent that HKE/CLP is. But certainly Govt (especially this one) is not in a hurry to change things. Which means except on a handful of routes, we have pretty cozy duopolies. I hope there is some change when we get the third runway, more towards Singapore's direction with their liberal air services policy (any govt spending there arguably helps new entrants more than the flag carrier). But if the status quo is perpetuated for allocation of slots for the third runway then CX is going to get the lion's share of benefit but not the proportionate cost. |
Originally Posted by percysmith
(Post 30248540)
Well at least Singapore and Japan (Narita) don't insist on bilaterals for its airport. UK moved on. One that has to meet all the stupid PPB rules from shipping law and have sufficient red backing (the Chinese type, not the red roo one). That's the idea. That's not the practice. Don't get me wrong - CX/KA is not a regulated monopoly to the extent that HKE/CLP is. But certainly Govt (especially this one) is not in a hurry to change things. Which means except on a handful of routes, we have pretty cozy duopolies. I hope there is some change when we get the third runway, more towards Singapore's direction with their liberal air services policy (any govt spending there arguably helps new entrants more than the flag carrier). But if the status quo is perpetuated for allocation of slots for the third runway then CX is going to get the lion's share of benefit but not the proportionate cost. No one doubt that current policy favors CX at certain extent which is common in current aviation business and it is not subsidy! It does not change the fact that the third runway is funded by AAHk revenue and additional levy. Cx bears the largest part of that. |
true deregulation will end up leading to a race to the bottom. some protectionism will be fine (in terms of FT). without which, look at what amazon does to high street shops. however, thats very different from state funded airlines like china and me3. |
Originally Posted by Aus106080
(Post 30250308)
No one doubt that current policy favors CX at certain extent which is common in current aviation business
We are at risk of going in circles though. I hope HKSARG/AAHK changes its ways. I'm more than happy to be proven wrong. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:13 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.