No. That's an apples to oranges comparison.

CX J or UA J. Lol. That's silly. US airlines are a dumpster fire in J.

You are right about your guess on performance divergence of CX&UA.

According to DOT data, CX performed quite well and its load factor was close to or over 90%. UA's SFO-HKG was still OK with around 70%-80% load factor. But UA's LAX-HKG was struggling with load factor around 55%-70%. Therefore UA cut LAX-HKG to 4 weekly service in some weeks earlier this year, and adding the legs to SGN/BKK to LAX-HKG is also a way of UA saving this route.

So, you're more of an A321 fan?

No what? You can't just say something's an apples to oranges comparison and then leave it as that. There's less competition on HKG-BKK compared to TPE-NRT or TPE-KIX.

-CX has been an established player in the Taiwan-Japan market for decades, to the extent that many people actually choose to fly with them
-all 3 of its current flights are operated at desirable times

By contrast, none of the 5th freedom routes UA has launched from HK have been more than a yawn. I guess they're better than KQ flying CAN-BKK in the middle of the night 2 or 3 times per week, but not by much.

By that same yardstick, HKG has served as a UA mini-hub for as long as I can remember except in the immediate past. You might not remember anymore but I sure do remember UA serving HKG-SIN on a 747.

Also, CX has only one flight from TPE to NGO/KIX/NRT at 11ish (or 1pm in NRT's case) that reaches at least at half 3; and at least 5pm on NRT's case. That's horrendous timing for both business and leisure travellers. So was CX's SIN-BKK/BKK-SIN fifth-freedoms, arriving at half 2 on both ends doesn't help.

Also, UA's HKG-BKK is at 9am (which is when CX decides to put two services on) and that's not a desirable timing? I fail to see the logic here.

The difference is that, with the possible exception of HKG-DEL, the UA flights have always been tags with abominable O&D loads. But, CX flies from Taiwan to Japan primarily to serve that market in isolation.

Why are people so concerned about UA

If they succeed it's only because CX failed to plan its fleet.

If CX restores its 4th flight to LAX and opens a 4th frequency to SFO or brings back EWR
UA is toast.
But CX prefers to hand its aircraft to Qatar and Air NZ.

I really wonder what’s in their medium-term calculations when they made such decisions for the 777s

Long time lurker. I’m curious - why are people so hung up on Cathay using the 321? Is it a vastly inferior product? The reviews I’ve seen on YouTube seemed mostly positive. And for 3-4 hour flights it doesn’t seem like such a big deal to me, but I’m from Canada where this is completely normal. It’s not unusual historically speaking for CX to be operating smaller aircraft than the competition. Anyone familiar with CX’s history knows they were operating turboprops (Electras if memory serves correctly) while the competitors were using 707’s. L1011’s when the competition had 747’s etc.

Off topic, I’m curious how the trade war might affect the passenger operations. I see this impacting freight the heaviest. If freight demand reduces, the case for the 777X seems to diminish. Perhaps a top up of 350’s?

Yes, it’s vastly inferior. In Y, legroom is abysmal and lav count is insufficient for the sardine/pax load. Other than the IFE screens and general newness, it is worse in every respect to the A330 regional workhorses.

In J, it’s not flat beds whereas competitors in the region have moved in this direction, even on narrow bodies. I have managed not to try it out in J so can’t comment first hand on how much better or worse it is vs the cradle wide body regional J product.

At least in J, its probably better than anything you would find in a north american narrowbody and eons ahead of what you'd find in a european narrowbody but vastly inferior to what say SQ is flying on the 737MAX. I don't think people object to it on the basis that its smaller gauge per say but rather whats in it. Its just not competitive. I would say its worse than the KA narrowbodies they replaced.

I have the privilege to be able to select exit row, so for me it does not make a big difference. I can't vouch for others. On the other hand, while I know CX had smaller aircraft historically, it has not been the case over the past couple of decades, until they absorbed KA. For most of us here, our impression of CX had been exclusively widebodies pre-COVID-19. That being said, I did not mind taking KA, either, so again, it is not a problem for me. I have fond memories of KA. My only problem with narrowbodies, whether CX or KA, is they tend to depart from and arrive to remote gates in both HKG and TPE.

The A321neo is tight in Y, and lacklustre in J. DL and UA might have similar products on their narrowbodies, but CX is competing in a totally different (and more competitive) market where widebodies and flatbeds are relatively common.

Some design flaws show it wasn't thought out very well too - like the Empower ports being recessed in J, which means if you're using a UK-style or US-style plug you're pretty much out of luck, since your plug cannot fully contact the inside of the port which is necessary for power to flow for those ports. Which goes against how the Empower ports are fitted across the rest of the fleet - these are all protruded.

CX's A321neo is also the most densely crammed as compared to their competition both across the mainland and Taiwan. Even on CA, CZ, MU, the equivalent arrangment on their A321neos is 12J + 186Y. On CX it's 12J + 190Y. Which is also problematic since the A321neo is capable of replacing most A330s + A359s in CX's fleet without much loss in Y capacity.

The 12J arrangement is also a mistake on CX, which is relatively premium-heavy - when KA had A321s, they had double the amount of J seats offered as well.

Honestly, it is quite ironic that CX has these recliners in J when ZH across the border has flatbeds on the same plane. I'm not looking forward when CX finally has 30 of these planes flying about, because it'll quite hard to avoid them.