boybi

QRC3288

IIRC, CX's last public statements on the issue were that a new RBC would be introduced in a few years and it would NOT necessarily be lie flat.

However, I think there are still a few possibilities for hope. It revolves around KA and CX end up with different RBC seats. KA not lie flat, and CX all flat. SQ is going to all flat beds in RBC and I have to imagine that will at least be considered in CX-land.

I'm not sure what CX has decided. But I know that KA taking over more short haul routes is a likely probability. I could eventually see KA doing more short haul and CX focusing on higher yielding short hauh only, plus medium and long haul. In such a scenario it might make sense for two products and let CX be all flat. The two are being much more closely integrated which could call for some differentiation about which routes get served by which carrier.

If ka and CX aren't further differentiated, and they have the same new RBC seat, then I think hope for lie flat is very low.

Arbeysix

Yes, my recollection (AusBT article I believe) is that CX categorically said that new regional J (CX and KA) would NOT be lie flat. However as you say, SQ has raised the bar, not only with mainline SQ, but also with the recent announcement that SilkAir 737s will be fitted with lie flat J. Even if CX/KA decide not to implement lie flat they may find themselves (if for no other reason than keeping up with what the competition is doing) having to, at a minimum, offer consistency and predicability on at least some routes where there is none today.

djsflynn

CX hasn't absolutely ruled out lie-flat, as my interviews with them have been during the earlier stages of the regional J project, but its intention and justification – the later that relatively short flights, especially for Cathay Dragon, removed the need for a flat bed – was clear:

March 2018
Vivian Lo, Cathay Pacific’s Head of Customer Experience & Design
https://www.ausbt.com.au/cathay-paci...-for-2020-2021

June 2018
Some bloke named Rupert Hogg :P
https://www.ausbt.com.au/what-s-next...business-class

I don't have a timeframe on delivery of the first A321neos beyond '2020' but CX would need to have that seat decision locked down soonish, although if it's a line-fit job (which I'd expect to be the case) the airline has extra time up its sleeve.

SQ's SilkAir decision really raises the regional; business class bar, although unsure if this really and significantly impacts CX for passengers. As an industry move, absolutely; as a nominal competitor, yes – but how many CX regional passengers would choose to fly SQ regional instead of CX regional?

If we're talking of people in HKG, the only common route would be HKG-SIN, which is of course a busy route for both airlines, but also a fairly short flight, and the loyalty handcuffs for lounge access etc come into play.

On any other route, HKG to anywhere else, is anybody going to fly SQ HKG-SIN and then connect SIN-somewhere for the sake of a flat bed? I can't see that happening, so on that basis I'd suggest CX can get by without a regional flat bed, in a smaller version of the same way that Emirates has been able top get by with a middle seat in its B777 business class for so long – because it can.

So as much as it'd be nice to see regional flat-beds for CX/KA, I'd not be holding my breath. Just my 2c

brunos

I also strongly doubt that CX would retrofit its recently-installed regional seats.
But I disagree that HKG-SIN is a "short" route". I frequently do this route and always stay in my seat for 4+ hours. It makes a whale of difference for my back pains to be able to lie down for a couple of hours.
But CX is mostly using LH planes on that destination, so that's how they should compete with SQ.
There are other destinations where they compete with seats far better than their regional ones, for example BKK (TG) or some destinations served by HX wide-bodies; and that's where they try to compete by sending LH planes. But the Russian roulette is painful. After a long business day, I need to lie down and take a nap. A last-minute change to a regional product is infuriating. I would be fine if CX could make an extreme priority to stick to their scheduled allocation of LH planes. But we know that it is impossible for operational reasons.

djsflynn

Sorry, that'd be my geographical bias creeping in – I'm in Sydney, and for most of us Aussies, four hours is 'a short flight'... I'll often describe SYD-SIN as being not a long flight, to the amusement of overseas colleagues who see eight hours as being very long!

percysmith

Not infuriating enough for you to switch airlines (is it even possible) or downgrade to Y...so they should continue to to make you suffer

Arbeysix

There's also the fact that many CX pax are connecting off other flights of varying duration up to 16+ hours. It can make a material difference whether the final 2-5 hours are spent in regional J or lie flat.

Regarding your other point about SQ/CX pax not overlapping on many routes, yes, clearly that is the case for HKG based pax. But perhaps you underestimate the importance of CX's non-HKG customer base. The two airlines are fierce rivals for the travel spend of many of us based in the region (outside HKG) who could choose to do predominantly all of our travel with either. From this perspective differences in the regional offering matter.

sxc

I've split these posts out of the equipment thread to keep the other thread more clean.

sxc
Cathay Pacific Moderator

carrotjuice

brunos

You are quite right. Now that they mostly have LH planes on BKK and SIN, I have returned to CX (was using TG and SQ), despite the occasional infuriation.

SLGO

brunos

Your point is a major one. Not only for non-HKG Asian pax but also to attract European/US pax flying to Asia with a transit in HKG (e.g. to HKT, DPS and others). CX competes not only with SQ but also with QR and the like. HK-based customers (I am one of them) are a minority for CX.

Ausriver

If KA uses lie flat for J class... how will they be able to sell their F products?

boybi