|
Originally Posted by lixiaojuventus
(Post 37393989)
Bolding mine. Why can't UO do the same for CX then?
But the size reflects the level of investments received from parent co over the years, and SQ has been running Scoot for 15 years while CX only owns UO since 2019. My two cents is SQ is more determined to give TR (or its LCC business) a clearly defined role on a strategic level with mergers with Tiger, and unwinding Silk over the years. While for CX, as someone pointed out, the acquisition of UO was to fend off competition. And then COVID hit...I would think CX wanted to make UO work as a leisure carrier for HK ppl more than part of network expansion, hence so many complains from ppl here. And some Japanese village routes are hit or miss. |
Originally Posted by lixiaojuventus
(Post 37393989)
Bolding mine. Why can't UO do the same for CX then?
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...37858ffb3a.png https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...eba3cb1116.png (Before someone pedantic points out the losses in FY2021/22, of course they lost money during Covid - which airline didn't?) |
Originally Posted by CXj3j24
(Post 37393969)
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. |
honestly, i think CX and SQ can coexist well. Each has their unique points , monopoly markets, style. They are huge competitiors, but doesnt mean both cant win at the same time.
I just hope all airlines continue improving. |
Originally Posted by majorpuppy
(Post 37395395)
honestly, i think CX and SQ can coexist well. Each has their unique points , monopoly markets, style. They are huge competitiors, but doesnt mean both cant win at the same time.
I just hope all airlines continue improving. The discussion pretty much has been centered around how UO's business model as it is right now is unsustainable considering the price, market and strategy value it offers, and the TR comparison is only there to show how unprofitable and insensible UO as a going concern has been compared to their "closest" equivalent (as a low-cost subsidiary of an Asian full service carrier). |
Originally Posted by MeltingAlf
(Post 37395405)
I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary - SQ and CX can and has coexisted well and their main bread and butter has been quite dissimilar (TPAC routes and NE Asian regionals for CX, Kangaroo routes and SE Asian regionals for SQ)
The discussion pretty much has been centered around how UO's business model as it is right now is unsustainable considering the price, market and strategy value it offers, and the TR comparison is only there to show how unprofitable and insensible UO as a going concern has been compared to their "closest" equivalent (as a low-cost subsidiary of an Asian full service carrier). SIN is a location where they can do a low-cost kangaroo route, but HKG can't. Even UO is more Japan-focused, UO is in a position that they are doing "something CX doesn't want to do", or, to serve as a 2nd carrier to use the slot. |
Originally Posted by MeltingAlf
(Post 37395405)
I don't think anyone has said anything to the contrary - SQ and CX can and has coexisted well and their main bread and butter has been quite dissimilar (TPAC routes and NE Asian regionals for CX, Kangaroo routes and SE Asian regionals for SQ)
The discussion pretty much has been centered around how UO's business model as it is right now is unsustainable considering the price, market and strategy value it offers, and the TR comparison is only there to show how unprofitable and insensible UO as a going concern has been compared to their "closest" equivalent (as a low-cost subsidiary of an Asian full service carrier). have no idea why despite UO being part of CX, it has seemingily no integration and transit potential, and awful prices, and UO i believe generally not too liked by HK people, more would prefer CX, especially considering their prices. plus UO is also doing nearby mainland traffic, so some traffic is not from locals- unlike scoot. i guess scoot has actual transit traffic from SQ, unlike UO who solely relies on point to point. (scoot has premium class too on 787) |
UO will be suspending hualien route from Jan.
load factor is around 53.4%. |
Originally Posted by sbs2716g
(Post 37403844)
UO will be suspending hualien route from Jan.
load factor is around 53.4%. |
(Low) Price was used to be the edge of UO in the past. But once CX acquired UO, UO no longer cut price on some CX's money printing route like HKG-HND (or anything route being overlapped.)
I feel like CX acquire UO is not for making money from UO & day to day business. They did it to reduce competition and thus boosting profit on CX itself. |
Originally Posted by Routely
(Post 37404556)
(Low) Price was used to be the edge of UO in the past. But once CX acquired UO, UO no longer cut price on some CX's money printing route like HKG-HND (or anything route being overlapped.)
I feel like CX acquire UO is not for making money from UO & day to day business. They did it to reduce competition and thus boosting profit on CX itself. |
Originally Posted by CXj3j24
(Post 37404698)
Not just those overlapping routes. UO transit pricing is more expensive than many full service SEA and Chinese carriers.
|
UO hire Harbin Airport ground supervisor.
|
Originally Posted by jonessher
(Post 37405664)
if you do last minute, of course. But if you keep looking for a sale and book in advance, there are cheap fares available.
|
Originally Posted by CX860
(Post 37418035)
Why would it be of course? If it's last minute, the FSC pricing will be high as well. It's apples to apples to compare pricing at the same time.
A sale has ended a week ago for next year, with Tokyo being HK$1012 return (with 7kg luggage) under HK$1000 return for other Japan and Korean destinations (except Osaka being HK$1041). That's the only time to buy UO tickets. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:31 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.