Originally Posted by moondog (Post 36370998)

This could certainly make things interesting; i.e. Mainland carriers theoretically carry the water for Papa Bear by operating pointless routes, and then offset their losses with good routes. Of course, this is essentially the same game they're playing with CX one-on-one now.

Originally Posted by dcahkg (Post 36377183)

False alarm, the incentives are lower landing fees.

Originally Posted by gwang0618 (Post 36378794)

NA airlines surely would love to reboot their capacities to HK - UA is increasing SFO and LAX service from 1 - 2 daily for both ports; and they are still listing EWR to HKG as starting this october (bookable). Delta discontinued their service pre-covid, AA is still due to return from dallas, and with CX flying double daily to YYZ it is unlikely AC will return until Russia airspace reopens.

Originally Posted by dcahkg (Post 36379869)

Disagree: UA has a strong Pacific strategy. But DL is tied to KE (I think the ATI JV covers HKG but not mainland) and AA and focused on HND/LHR as their intl strategy.

Besides, the US is explicitly trying to decouple from China, so carriers will focus on JPN/SIN and even TPE/MNL before boosting HKG.

UA is capable of flying ORD-HKG without touching Russia but will not.

Originally Posted by moondog (Post 36380103)

1. Yes, Delta and American are much more reliant on their JVs for transpacific (apart from Mainland China).
2. But, Delta has made a substantial bet on Seattle
3. Delta doesn't have many spare planes for long routes at present, so they need to be selective about deployment (similar to CX), and it wasn't long ago that they tried and failed at SEA-HKG
4. PKX will presumably come before HK because their dormancy waiver isn't going to last forever
5. United is fine forcing customers to connect in California en route to Asia; while I'm not a fan of this (coming from the East Coast), I will concede that they've made the schedules/connections fairly civilized in both directions
6. I happen to almost enjoy flying AA via DFW, but I HKG doesn't seem to be in the cards anytime soon

Based on these points, CX is sitting pretty in NYC, ORD, BOS, and YYZ (i.e. monopolies). Ramping up LAX/SFO might not be especially lucrative because that's where United is placing all of its marbles. Seattle is a little intriguing because putting a damper on Delta's plans could make some sense, but again, it was a loser before, so it's probably not a strong consideration now.

Originally Posted by dcahkg (Post 36380148)

Fully agree. I'll add that SEA-NE Asia specifically TPE has massive capacity with four nonstops, so even if CX wants to start SEA they'll see how that settles out. AS in OW (and perhaps B6 later where CX will share JFK T6 whereas AA is at JFK T8) could offer good connections.

AA could fly LAX-HKG now but it didn't do as well as DFW-HKG (which can't be flown now).

The US government has China including Hong Kong as a foreign adversary along with Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela. That is the reality of HKG's standing in US/UK, etc. which is why pre-2019 levels of TPAC transit via HKG is also not something CX can count on going forward.

Originally Posted by gwang0618 (Post 36378794)

NA airlines surely would love to reboot their capacities to HK - UA is increasing SFO and LAX service from 1 - 2 daily for both ports; and they are still listing EWR to HKG as starting this october (bookable). Delta discontinued their service pre-covid, AA is still due to return from dallas, and with CX flying double daily to YYZ it is unlikely AC will return until Russia airspace reopens.

Originally Posted by TravellingChris (Post 36380448)

I'd love to see WestJet do YYC-HKG with CX codesharing on the route and an expanded codeshare agreement for onward travel (e.g. WS's code on CX services to BKK, KUL, SIN, DPS, CGK, HAN, CEB).

Originally Posted by oldchinahand (Post 36381634)

They have a very small long haul fleet of only 7 aircraft all B787's. Their Business class is only 16 seats.
No chance of new Asian routes in the near future I would suggest.

Originally Posted by TravellingChris (Post 36381775)

The question raised elsewhere on FT was what WS should be doing with its 787s in the winter season. It has built a decent business flying to Europe in the summer from YYC with the Dreamliners (and connecting pax from the western U.S. through its Calgary hub), but only Heathrow and Paris are year-round. The suggestion other members have made was that WS can't just switch the remaining Dreamliners to sun destinations over the winter, as these aircraft likely represent too much capacity on sun routes--many of which are better served by 737s anyway. My point was wondering about WS doing YYC-HKG over the winter----a CX codeshare would provide connectivity to onward destinations. Surely a Hong Kong route would be sustainable over the winter, given onward flights with CX to SE Asia and the Mainland, and would be a better use of a Dreamliner than just dumping excess capacity into, say, the Caribbean.

Originally Posted by moondog (Post 36381781)

Isn't CX milking Canada pretty nicely at present? Why mess with a good thing? On the WS side of the equation, dedicating 2 of their 7 planes to market they've never served before for just 4 or 5 months seems kind of risky to me.