I told you it would be mainland cities you hadn't heard of. ;)

(Most have probably heard of many on that list but...Xining and Yinchuan would probably scratch some heads.

Does the bilateral allow CX to add service to any Canadian cities it chooses, or is it restricted to Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal? For comparison, as I understand it the bilateral with Thailand is extremely restrictive and didn't allow TG to serve YVR, even when it was operating direct flights to North America in the past.

I wonder if service to YYC would be viable by CX, crew resources permitting. The carrier does have a longstanding relationship with WS and Calgary is WS' fortress hub.

I wonder if WS had the aircraft (if they hadn't foolishly cancelled their future Dreamliners) if HKG wouldn't be the next city in Asia WS might serve itself. Seems like a logical next step after Narita and Incheon.

I guess I might have been overthinking or reading too much into the Canada comments. Upon further reflection, 2x to both YVR and YYZ seems about right to me during the medium term, and it's not difficult to think of other destinations (not in Canada) that make more sense than Calgary.

Saudi tourism minister says details on "more direct flights" from the country to HK soon (aren't there currently none?)...could be CX, but given the spokesperson quite possibly one of theirs?

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dipl...c-tourism-lift

European route resumptions?
 

On the European side, is there any news of any suspended routes resuming? FCO was long served by CX for decades prior to being suspended, and I also note that Rome is no longer listed as an airport on Cathay's website. Likewise, will any of the routes introduced under Rupert Hogg while he was CEO return? (DUB, BRU, LGW?)

To summarize what we know from before: Barcelona resuming in June and strong rumors of LGW in October, but that's it for these in terms of info.

doubt LGW. Its not even being loaded to northen winter 24/25 schedule yet. Id expect first schedule loaded with zero out as leading indicator of resUmption

I'm unsure. CX have been quite late in finalising schedules and a/c allocation, I think partly due to current staff shortages following the pandemic, so I wouldn't rule it out entirely at this stage. For example, they were late in finalising schedules for LHR this summer; at one stage, they were showing 1 daily 77W and 4 daily 359 before confirming the current a/c allocation.

As US HK UK flyer says, LGW has been frequently hinted as potentially resuming towards the end of October this year, which is also something I have heard of. I personally hope it'll come back, but assuming it will, I'm surprised there's been no announcements/confirmation of the route returning (yet) with just over 5 months to go, I thought they would have announced something by now. Furthermore, LHR now sees 2 daily A359s (in addition to the other 3 77W), which is down capacity-wise compared to W23, which had been up to 4 daily 77W and 1 daily 35K (later switched to a 77W). Given this, is extra capacity needed at Gatwick yet? I was surprised to see the A359 back at LHR this summer, because I thought they would've opted for 5 77Ws (LHR) and send the A359 back to LGW instead of LHR.

From a flyer/customer's view, what is the advantage of flying from Hong Kong to Gatwick instead of Hong Kong to Heathrow?

It’s easier to get LGW slots. Also if you fly LON-HKG, but don’t live in west London you might prefer LGW.

Agreed. Just to add to your points on passenger advantages for LGW:

• LGW is generally regarded as a more relaxed airport compared to LHR. I flew CX from LGW several times prior to its suspension, and flying from the South Terminal generally felt nicer versus the airport experience of LHR Terminal 3. The airport is unrecognisable now compared to the Gatwick in the BAA era, and it shows, GIP have done very well to revitalise LGW. Yes, a disadvantage is that there is no CX lounge at LGW, but they did (and presumably will again if/when they return) allow business class passengers to use the BA South Terminal lounges which are good.
• Provides more choice and flexibility for passengers wishing to fly CX but avoid LHR.
• Fares were marginally cheaper from LGW on CX versus their LHR flights due to lower airport costs at Gatwick.

Heathrow is the better option. More onward destinations, particularly long-haul. And ground transport is arguably superior from LHR into central London than from LGW.

LGW is a substitute of LHR, I agree

yet,
Demand to UK is high
In case LHR flights are overbooked, passengers can transfer to LGW flight
LGW has a lower airport tax
LHR doesn't have sufficient slot

that's why airlines consider LGW or even STN

how about the following:
1. AUH
2. SEA
3. ARN
4. MUC
5. IAD
6. DFW
7. CPH
8. EWR

I highly doubt they'd put their DOT good graces with either of these (i.e. they require Russia overflights on the way back).