back to troll again, just ignore this poster....

considering net profit in 2023 and 2024 is much better compared to 2018/ 2019, load factors in 2025 are better than 2024 and 2019.

it is noteworthy though that CX and UO have successfully managed to end a lot of foreign airline routes (or heavily reduce capacity) to HKG recently, through their own insane flight increases. in pre covid competition from foreign airlines was a lot more, now HKG feels more like DXB/ DOH where one airline has almost all the market share

Its very difficult to compete with UO, see HX and HB. For long haul, most airlines are suffering from a lack of wodebody capacity, given the production delays of the 787s, A350s and the 777xs. So it may not be as simple as CX's effort to end the routes of those airlines being successful.

Just my two cents here: based on the monthly traffic data published by the Hong Kong airport and Cathay Group, it is implied that the incremental growth of passenger volume at HKG this year is mainly contributed by CX group, while all the other airlines barely see any growth.
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...1d3867bde0.jpg

By the way CX group carried 3 million passengers in April, while in April 2018, this number is 2.98M. It is really baseless to claim that CX still lagged largely behind its pre-covid level.

The CX Group includes HK Express now but did not in 2018. So the takeaway is different if you just compare full service vs full service (Cathay Pacific now vs Cathay + Dragonair in 2018). Of course, which comparison is more relevant is up to you to decide.

I think it's probably folly to think that CX directly caused the end of foreign airline service - if anything, the collapse of business demand to/fro HKG and Russian airspace closures probably have more to do with this than CX themselves.

I think similar levels would be a more balanced view. However, more regional traffic compared to long haul traffic is unarguable and I think flyer talk members focus more on long haul traffic.

i think the obvious counterpoint is it's not apples to apples. Case in point the thread next to this one, a fellow who bought a cash J ticket from the UK to Da Nang. In 2018, this passenger would have a J class ticket on all four segments and unquestioned lounge access in HK and DAD. Now, he/she only gets lounge access in HK on the return (not outbound, after flying 12 hours from the UK in J), economy class on the two short haul segments (and a compact economy at that with nil on board except for that you pay for), and no lounge access in DAD.

Overall, clearly for this cohort of premium transit passengers, no matter how CX spins it it's an obvious downgrade.

I'd say it's very easy for them to get back most of the trouble, by issuing lounge access in HKG to transit pax from CX long-haul to UO short haul on code shares. I think that should resolve their concerns. (Have a long-haul inbound BP plus be on UO codeshare).

No way around the crappy seat or lack of options on board. UO even tries to insist you can't bring your own F&B (I had a lovely first this year experience last month - I was told to put my water bottle away!!), I'd like to see them try and enforce that. I drank my water successfully. Just reminded me that while this might be my only option to some regional non-CX cities, fine concept, but I am not flying UP if I can avoid it. And it's definitely a shame for CX to do it to premium transit pax.

To the point of this thread, it all depends how you interpret it. Traffic wise inc UO yes they are nearly there. The extra detail is really all you can ask for (and as if to underline they feel they have their tails between their legs, CX goes to lengths to not provide the caveats when talking about their current traffic and capacity). UO is blowing up huge, CX cargo is enormous, CX passenger is well behind where it was before, and KA is gone. Whatever that means is for interpretation.

Much of KA business is being reallocated to UO, so I can't see why we should exclude UO in the comparison when ex-Covid it's KA inclusive.
If you want a fair comparison you should do a 2025 CX minus ex-KA flts vs 2019 CX.

while that is true for routes to Europe/ NA, for regional routes it is pretty obvious that UO and CX has aggressively expanded capacity to flush out foreign airlines, for example PEN, DAD, HKT, XMN and most key cities like SIN/ tokyo/ ICN/ CGK has got much less capacity from foreign carriers. though aircraft shortage could also be an issue.

meanwhile, HX is gonna open URC and MEL soon as it got out of debt. interesting change of fate.

PEN/DAD/HKT is pretty much the remit of low-cost carriers, and XMN is uncompetitive as an O/D route compared to the HSR so those examples only show that CX is flushing out AirAsia - or that pretty much if a low-cost like AK can't make HKG work, CX is pretty much banking on connecting traffic to sustain these routes.

SIN-HKG is served by the SQ group 5-6 times a day vs 7 on CX which isn't a massive drop - and in fact capacity is somewhat similar considering TR generally sends their 787s which has almost about the same number as seats as the 77P. In fact UO can't even get SIN-HKG to work for them. Same situation with HKG-ICN (KE group 6 times vs CX/UO 7). If CX is doing a good job flushing them out those carriers should be doing way worse, but they aren't. And yet in particular the SIN-HKG market is somewhat smaller than before the pandemic which means that O/D has weakened.

Agree re: TYO but I think JP is a wildcard. Japanese passengers are significantly more sticky to JL/NH so if the demand is there from ex-JP passengers JL/NH would have more services. In that sense CX is pretty much attracting the HKG-based holidaying/business crowd there, which tracks considering Japan is HKers default holiday spot. In fact it feels like the Japanese carriers having way less flights (4 only to HKG vs 6/7 to TPE/TSA and PVG/SHA or 8 to SIN from TYO) seems to suggest they don't think HKG is worth their time. Again an O/D issue.

I would think so but one doesn't preclude the other I guess.

Its not baseless.

CX purchased UO
You have to include UO data in 2019 then if you want to claim CX has recovered.

CX group is well short of 2019 numbers and even woese if you add UO 2019 numbers to the mix.

looks like HX is able to get more widebodies anyway and is thus expanding , something CX is unable to do due to pathetic fleet planning.

The Cathay Group included KA in 2019 (I think?), which is now defunct. The fact that KA has been replaced by UO since 2019 makes your argument irrelevant here...

And to speak about HX expanding is simply laughable. We can all see the state that the airline is heading towards (and has been in for a number of years now), yet CX is unable to do that due to their 'pathetic fleet planning'. If successfully expanding your airline that was in a horrible situation during Covid is pathetic, then I would love to know what isn't. Please, email CX with your suggestions as to what they should do with their fleet instead, I'm sure they will appreciate it.

Just out from SCMP though - HX is going to start Urumqi and Melbourne. Apparently elsewhere they were saying they have 90% load factor on HKG-YVR.

I actually hope HX does well. The more pressures on CX, the better for us as passengers, even if we choose to fly CX exclusively.

HX is expanding? Buhahhahaha. See, someone is saying that, the 4-5 fifth-hand A330 is more attractive than the 40-50 brand-new 777-9 and A330-900 that CX will receive soon.