![]() |
This may be of interest:
According to OAG Traffic Analyzer, Cathay's top unserved US destination is Seattle, with 57,000 passengers traveling between the two cities in the year ending July 2024. Seattle is also a hub for Oneworld partner https://static0.simpleflyingimages.c...tain&h=22&w=22Alaska Airlines , further enhancing the market's potential. Seattle is followed by Honolulu (42,000), Houston (38,000), Las Vegas (35,000), and Washington, DC (25,000). |
Originally Posted by US HK UK flyer
(Post 37051326)
|
Personally, all of those routes are unconvincing. I think increasing frequencies to European destinations with codeshare partners, such as Madrid and Munich to daily are better use of aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by jonessher
(Post 37051447)
Personally, all of those routes are unconvincing. I think increasing frequencies to European destinations with codeshare partners, such as Madrid and Munich to daily are better use of aircraft.
|
Originally Posted by US HK UK flyer
(Post 37050582)
I still think MIA is a possibility at some stage and actually a better connector to a lot of Latin America than DFW.
|
Originally Posted by CX860
(Post 37051560)
+1 but I don't see them doing this before increasing frequencies at other US ports and SEA.
Also, we don't know whether the A350-1000 can make that long (gcmap said 7812nm, 350-1000 8000nm). If not, can CX find a place for 5th freedom? Maybe they should try to do HKG-YVR-MIA just like before. |
Originally Posted by pochi
(Post 37051800)
There is a Swire hotel in MIA. But if the war didn't stop, CX can't use AA code for HKG<->MIA. That would have less of a connection with AA's flight.
Also, we don't know whether the A350-1000 can make that long (gcmap said 7812nm, 350-1000 8000nm). If not, can CX find a place for 5th freedom? Maybe they should try to do HKG-YVR-MIA just like before. - CX is going to DFW without the codeshare on its own flights; it's still beneficial to link up with AA - A350-800 range is over 8000nm so it could make it - I don't believe they did YVR-MIA before, but did YVR-JFK? |
Originally Posted by jonessher
(Post 37051447)
Personally, all of those routes are unconvincing. I think increasing frequencies to European destinations with codeshare partners, such as Madrid and Munich to daily are better use of aircraft.
people finally started seeing the ugly side to US, I think some US routes might have to be reduced in capacity soon actually. those aircraft would finally free the A350 pressure and perhaps be redeployed somewhere else. not sure is CX serious about even more US destinations, most airlines execs claims don't end up happening anyway. |
Originally Posted by majorpuppy
(Post 37051878)
agreed, Europe capacity is way better compared to last year but still has a lot of potential. apart from MAD and MUC, perhaps CDG to 10 weekly, FCO can go daily. maybe more on the middle east/ Africa too, like the often mentioned CMN.
people finally started seeing the ugly side to US, I think some US routes might have to be reduced in capacity soon actually. those aircraft would finally free the A350 pressure and perhaps be redeployed somewhere else. not sure is CX serious about even more US destinations, most airlines execs claims don't end up happening anyway. |
Originally Posted by CXj3j24
(Post 37051364)
LAS is very interesting. Perhaps driven by conventions?
|
Originally Posted by pochi
(Post 37051800)
There is a Swire hotel in MIA. But if the war didn't stop, CX can't use AA code for HKG<->MIA. That would have less of a connection with AA's flight.
Also, we don't know whether the A350-1000 can make that long (gcmap said 7812nm, 350-1000 8000nm). If not, can CX find a place for 5th freedom? Maybe they should try to do HKG-YVR-MIA just like before.
Originally Posted by US HK UK flyer
(Post 37051826)
- Swire owns more in Miami than the East hotel actually
- CX is going to DFW without the codeshare on its own flights; it's still beneficial to link up with AA - A350-800 range is over 8000nm so it could make it - I don't believe they did YVR-MIA before, but did YVR-JFK? |
Originally Posted by majorpuppy
(Post 37051878)
agreed, Europe capacity is way better compared to last year but still has a lot of potential. apart from MAD and MUC, perhaps CDG to 10 weekly, FCO can go daily. maybe more on the middle east/ Africa too, like the often mentioned CMN.
people finally started seeing the ugly side to US, I think some US routes might have to be reduced in capacity soon actually. those aircraft would finally free the A350 pressure and perhaps be redeployed somewhere else. not sure is CX serious about even more US destinations, most airlines execs claims don't end up happening anyway. Due to limited number of aircrafts available before 777xs arrive, new long haul routes in the summer seasons is unlikely to happen anyway and I believe increasing frequencies to current established routes would be a priority. I still wonder whether Almaty is an opportunity for CX with its A321s (which are pretty underutilized currently) and/or A330s (if there are enough belly cargo) when there are a lot of talks about seeking business opportunities in the CIS region and the fact that there are numerous cargo flights from the region to HK. (And the fact that Air Astana codeshares with CX). Also wonder whether why Maldives is being intentionally left out from the network. |
Originally Posted by jonessher
(Post 37052191)
Maybe BRU to daily. FCO daily is unlikely and chances of more CDG is not high either at this stage (due to connection timing).
Due to limited number of aircrafts available before 777xs arrive, new long haul routes in the summer seasons is unlikely to happen anyway and I believe increasing frequencies to current established routes would be a priority. I still wonder whether Almaty is an opportunity for CX with its A321s (which are pretty underutilized currently) and/or A330s (if there are enough belly cargo) when there are a lot of talks about seeking business opportunities in the CIS region and the fact that there are numerous cargo flights from the region to HK. (And the fact that Air Astana codeshares with CX). Also wonder whether why Maldives is being intentionally left out from the network. For CIS regions I personally doubt CX would ever fly there considering those aren't popular travel destinations by locals and they would need to heavily rely on cargo/transit pax/business pax in order to sustain a profitable route. Riyadh isn't doing the best from what I believe (which the government forced them to reopen despite being a loss route prior covid) and I doubt they'd add more destinations to just lose money. For the maldives, I think the demand is also thin. Hong Kong airlines will operate a seasonal service to MLE and I don't think there's more demand for a second daily / more weekly flights unfortunately. cool destination tho |
Originally Posted by jonessher
(Post 37052191)
Maybe BRU to daily. FCO daily is unlikely and chances of more CDG is not high either at this stage (due to connection timing).
Due to limited number of aircrafts available before 777xs arrive, new long haul routes in the summer seasons is unlikely to happen anyway and I believe increasing frequencies to current established routes would be a priority. I still wonder whether Almaty is an opportunity for CX with its A321s (which are pretty underutilized currently) and/or A330s (if there are enough belly cargo) when there are a lot of talks about seeking business opportunities in the CIS region and the fact that there are numerous cargo flights from the region to HK. (And the fact that Air Astana codeshares with CX). Also wonder whether why Maldives is being intentionally left out from the network. The sequence of European destination resumption is really interesting. Apart from core cities such as FRA/AMS/ZRH/MXP, the next resumed destinations were MAD and BCN. BRU, MUC and FCO came much later than these two cities in Spain. This sequence could hint CX's priority in Europe when they consider which destination could get frequency boost. |
BUD should be high on the agenda.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:53 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.