In fairness, UO do offer cheap flights to places though, but with the caveat that these are places that don't have that much demand in the first place so they try to encourage people to go there and raise load factors on these sectors.

That being said I don't think HKers in general are a really adventurous bunch when it comes to vacation destinations, which in turn means most of them head to say, Japan (yet again) for vacation, which in turn means UO's main money-making opportunities just are in those routes which you do mention aren't as price-competitive as, say, HX/HB/CX all things considered (which then in turn makes them ironically uncompetitive on these sectors when you add all the add-ons). Unlike the Koreans, you generally won't find HKers in places like Azerbaijan or Mongolia or Saipan holidaying, which means that UO's attempt on stimulating route demand a la LCC style by slashing fares (and trying to sell them stuff onboard) isn't exactly working and they just have to rely quite heavily on the typical holiday destinations to make a profit.

Add on the fact that HKers are generally thrifty that they won't spend additional $ unless necessary, this means that the LCC business model of making back $ from selling things don't exactly work very well for UO.

Frankly, I never really understood why CX decided to buy UO. I mean, sure, it was opportunistic considering HX's financial woes, and probably to alleviate the fact they were squeezed by HX/UO until then, but I'm not even sure if CX knows what they are trying to do with UO except spamming a bunch of routes now and hoping some of them stick. I can see some doing quite okay (like SZB, since it's closer than KUL), or of course the Japan routes, but then again they could very well do the same thing with CX itself...

Quite agree.
It left me an impression that CX never truly knows what it wants from UO. Taking TR as example, SQ has to absorb the loss / financial pressure to extend its network to some lower-yield SEA and China ports and effectively consolidates its position in the region. But UO is not quite there yet.

If we think UO as pure leisure focused and apply the 90% LF as breakeven line, it could be hard to see routes like Ishigaki / Miyako financially sound on a full year basis unless you have premium cabins for higher yields.

Two considerations I don't see discussed re UO:

1) They don't (just) serve HK residents and transit passengers - I don't see discussion on use of UO by Pearl River Delta catchment basin passengers. They might not want full service.
(Yes this is an English language channel and we act as if Rednote users don't exist or take flights, but they do)

2) CX bought UO in 2019 to shut out competition. Now that it's got an effective monopoly on ex-HKG frequencies, it is at liberty to decide how much enshxtification takes place to maximise profits.

I did mention about the business case as to why CX bought out UO at that point in time, but I also do think that the world has sufficiently moved on that UO as a going concern doesn't exactly make much sense. If UO is losing money hand over fist (which isn't exactly the case for TR, and mind, TR also operates >20 widebodies) to keep their network alive, wouldn't that then suggest that it might just be better for CX to absorb UO and reap the network effects benefit from CX itself?

At least with KA, CX was using it as a way to "block" off routes/countries - especially with air service agreements that allow only two HK-based carriers operating to a country. CX hasn't been using UO to that effect here.

On the Pearl River Delta thesis, my experiences/take have been a little different to yours. You mentioned Rednote, but you did forget that XHS is pretty much used by the middle/upper-middle class who have quite the bone to pick (the CX carpet incident started there amongst others) and have cash to spare. And also, non-full-service carriers serving majority Japanese/Korean destinations (high-spend places) isn't exactly the kind of the place the wider hypothetical UO Pearl River Delta clientele has an interest in. Considering that given the UO departure times, it means that especially for the early-morning flights people would have to pass Huanggang super early in the dead hours of the night and then take a once-an-hour bus, which considering the faff they might just stick to SZX/CAN. So we either have to acknowledge UO is aiming for HKers first and foremost, or there is confusion to their strategy in terms of destination selection, which makes the catchment thesis a bit less likely.

Hey DM guys in this thread, I know you are well-off (or company-sponsored), but most Hong Kong people are not like you at all. They have the right to travel, yet their budgets are tight, or not as flexible as you DMs, especially when travelling with the whole family. For them, UO and other LCCs are the answer. Please come back down to earth and think like an ordinary person before jumping into the discussions about UO. Thanks.

Have you literally missed the entire discussion where UO prices out almost as (or even more) expensive on the routes where HKers want to go compared to CX/HX/HB?

Looks like UO point is to be cheaper to operate for CX and not necessarily be cheaper for the consumer, since UO doesn't seem to be profitable, unlike CX, I wonder if they are asking themselves the question, "should we fold UO into CX, refit the aircraft with business class and call it a day?"

Name a route where UO is charging more than CX. Let's do some fact check now:)

Do you think by putting lipstick on a poor route, it stops being a pig?

To put it bluntly, there is no such thing as right to travel just as there isn't a right to have CX on a route. If you don't like the price or the service just don't go.

HKG - BKK round trip, Dec 5 - 7, a weekend itinerary departing on Fri afternoon and back to HK on Sun night.
UO 702 / UO713 - MAX fare (cabin luggage + 32kg checked bag) - > HKD2,124
CX701 / CX702 Econ Light (cabin luggage + 23kg checked bag) -> HKD2,078

Yes, you can argue UO has 9kg more checked allowance. But CX offers F&B and does not kick out pax with bags of duty free. Same for ICN routes.
You can argue that checked baggage is not needed for short trips but some shoppers might disagree, and hard to compare apple to apple then.

It is not all about ppl here craving for premium cabins. It is to make CX as a whole financially sound, and competitive in offerings to all segments.

This is not an apple to apple comparison. You know how the LCC business model works. Just like I will not complain when Econ light is more expensive than PEY essential.

And again, before complaining CX not providing ‘premium service’ on some specific routes, please come back to earth and think about the mass market first.

I didn't know CX ran a charity that they should be subsidizing a whole unprofitable subsidiary.

I would have thrown more examples if not for the fact UO is running another fire sale again and I have no interest in waiting half an hour to enter a website just to check a bunch of HK-Taiwan flights that will price up like for like.

Also, you were the one who said families take UO because it's cheaper - if that's the case, the comparison they made is fair. You're not going to get a family of four travelling with a light bag and no check-in luggage. Hell, they'll probably opt for paid seat allocations too. Perhaps maybe just concede your assertions didn't hold and move on?

And why HK local consumers need to care about how LCC works vs FSC?

A normal HK local who travels twice a year for leisure mostly to regional destinations would find check luggage allowance much more necessary that FT ppl here as they dont have the luxury to do 36/48 hr getaways every month or every other. Neither do they know / care ECON light vs PEY essential unless OTAs can prompt such content when booking.

For my own Xmas trip to DAD with families this year, I had to opt for HX priced at HKD3.2k with 23kg bag allowance. UO priced at HKD3.8k - 3.9k when I made the booking. And for a 5-6 day stay, all the fam need to carry their own suitcase.
However, if I put on my FTer / DM hat, an biz open-jaw routing via HGH is the most "economic way" if I need to go to HGH. So does UO works best for the interests of average joe in HK? Hardly. Does "the privileged group" get higher ROI from their CX/UO game? Yes.

Then, the flip side of this subject is does UO work best for CX group that eventually could make CX stronger and benefit all consumers as ends? Def not now...When we complain slow network expansion / pilot layoffs / tough time for crew / horrible A321, it all traces back to the financial difficulties from COVID. Customers of all segments are essentially on the same boat. I hope CX wont degrade itself to likes of IB so that fares and products are "comparable" to LCCs while we grieve our investment in SP and MPC.

Bolding mine. Why can't UO do the same for CX then?