Based on assumptions and/or insider knowledge, what are some of the most and least profitable routes? Profitability, for this purpose can be in whichever way you wish to measure it... but hopefully something that reflects the calculations used by the airline and for business decisions.

This is probably a bit of a loaded question... I just often think about this myself and can't really come to a convincing answer other than gut instinct.

My guess: HKG-JFK/SFO/LAX/LHR are the most profitable.... something like BAH-DXB, not so much?

Hkg tpe

hkg khh

OH, yeah.

(And isn't that ironic?)

Why?

both Taiwan, and one so close to the other

For SYD and MEL, I keep noticing their premium cabins get sold out, and I think cargo should be a worthwhile business too. But their back cabin can't be sold full for love or money.

On those routes, will it benefit CX to run a premium-heavy 788 (if they had them)?

Not gonna happen... they're committed to Airbus through-and-through at this point. Another configuration in the fleet would only add cost really; cost that they would never recoup until the market changes again.

And yes, cargo is absolutely a sound business strategy.

Slight treason in the 777-9...

those aren't exactly new, but yeah

SYD I class fare ex-HKG is as low as it gets for long hauls across the network. I would doubt that it yields overly well (well sure, but not that well)

Don't forget the belly. Some routes stay alive just because of the cargo

'Outstanding' level - London, SFO, Tokyo (both), Singapore, Beijing, Johannesburg

Struggling - Brussels, DC, Nagoya

Oh but I looooooove the HKG-BRU route... I fly it at least once a quarter -- and in fact, tomorrow! It's never busy and the timing is perfect. Lol.... but yeah, never busy -- hence the struggling part. Actually it was busy one time... when Frankfurt airport shutdown due to the strike.

Revenue vs cost.

1.2 hr flight time - high revenue, wide body..

B777 running cost of $8000/hr
300 seats @ 900+ average a seat.

$270,000HK/ $35,000 US on $9600 flight.

Airlines struggle to define "route profitability" and rely on many internal accounting costing/pricing assumptions.
Two examples:

- Many regional pax use regional flights as feeder to longhaul. How do you assign the regional segment accounting wise (this is usually different from the NUC pricing)? A regional route that does not show huge loads but contributes a lot to longhaul traffic might be very profitable.

- HKG-CDG moves over the years from 1 daily to 10 weekly and planned two daily. CX was offering huge discount in premium cabins to fill the two daily planes. Suddenly CX decided to cut down to one daily. No more attractive discount in premium cabins. Hence that single flight must look very profitable despite the high CDG station fixed costs.

I remember reading somewhere else, CX claims TPE or PVG aren�t as profitable as others think, because a large portion of customers travelling on these routes are transit passengers, so if they split the revenue by distance, these short haul routes only count in for a small fraction of profit (i.e., if TPE-HKG-LHR in J is $3000 USD, TPE-HKG only counts for about $300). Based on the Forbes article in 2019, HKG-LHR is top 10 most profitable segment around the world, but this includes BA and VS as well. So I assume LHR, JFK would definitely be the most profitable segment.

Actually I think some unexpected routes might be very profitable. I heard for example for BA, some route in West Africa (forgot which one) used to be very profitable due to almost no competition and an almost all-business-traveller demand.

So I could expect for CX, probably JFK/LAX are not necessarily the most profitable. I have the feeling many Japan routes are very expensive for the distance, could probably very profitable. Sometimes, a return Y fare HKG - TYO is about the same as HKG - SYD. Similarly, I could imagine JNB probably works quite well.