Yes, and in fact HKG is offering special incentives for long-haul Europe/North America as its "strategic routes" scheme for "target countries". This is a three-year scheme. They said Russia airspace restrictions were preventing those long-haul routes ramping up (as opposed to Mideast/Africa/AUS which is not affected) but as noted above US and Canadian airlines have their own commercial and political reasons not to boost HKG.

A major issue with Europe is the subsidized nature of ME3 competitors, so there really has to be some nonstop premium that can be captured. Even BA is cutting back on LHR-HKG. Near term CX would probably boost MAN to daily, maybe add LGW and boost CDG/MAD, and that's it. DUB/BRU/CPH/DUS were in response to pre-COVID China capacity and none of them worked that well. FCO is not needed with MXP, a much better market. TLV must come back in time.

The incentives available to everyone is starting or thickening routes, to be paid out by tonnage and frequency each time they fly. This is a two-year scheme. Some current beneficiaries are:
UO CRK
JX TPE

HKG is worried the third runway slots won't be made use of. New routes must last for at least 20 weeks to enjoy the incentives.

It's doubtful WS adds HKG, they're DL-aligned and the US market is much stronger. Their Asia traffic is being flowed over the supreme Skyteam TPAC hub ICN.

MXP isn't really a substitute for FCO. Its three hours + from Roma Termini to Milano Centrale and then another hour out to MXP.

By that token, they don't need to serve BCN since they serve MAD and don't need to serve BOS since they serve JFK.

FCO will come back but probably seasonal at least to start like BCN. They are in the same bucket as places like CTS where HKers go in season.

it is true no foriegn carriers have really increased flights, had new routes or even aircraft model upgrades to HKG in a long time. this coming winter there are so little frequency increases from any apart from CX. its a shame HKG has to be like queensland...

but on the other hand, its pretty suspicious whether or not the airport authority has blocked certain foreign carriers before to make CX have more dominance, considering its market share is far higher than pre covid. TK is a good example.. i think it regrets it now...

CX would ask, if I have another 350/77W to send abroad, why send it to FCO (tourism, lower yield, transit competition for AUS flow) as opposed to better-yielding destinations?

BOS is a much stronger premium market than FCO I gather.

Italy is not as popular among HK tourists as France or even Spain these days, BCN ramps up before they go back to FCO.

Come to think of it, ZRH must be a market HKG wants to add to strategically. DXB/AUH should be increased but again maybe not by CX.

HKG is becoming much more digiriste and clear about which industries it wants to further and FCO does not fit into that (unless Italy rejoins BRI or something). They can fly QR. They're better off trying ATH/CPH or something for the shipping or ARN/CPH for biotech. Maybe that's why I shouldn't be so bearish about SEA.

BRI might want them to go to Central/Eastern Europe nonstop from HKG but why.

Now, to speculate widely: SW Pacific would be interesting. CHC to keep NZ happy. And maybe explore DRW/CBR/Wollongong to get around the cap! One can dream.

It would be fun to see fifth freedoms again but unlikely. HKG-YVR-MIA/MEX anyone? Or HKG-TIJ (for SAN?) I guess CZ has MEX covered.

CX flies to lots of destinations which are pure tourism. BCN, CTS and CHC which you yourself brought up. FCO is not any different.

FCO isn't going to be any lower yielding than BCN.

Do you have any evidence that Italy is not as popular as France or Spain? Why does CX have to keep NZ happy?

If it was only about BRI, CX would have to axe 90% of it routes tomorrow.

Great observation, and this is where CX and HKG interests are not the same. CX can get higher profits by keeping prices high even by reducing volume. HKG is launching incentives explicitly so that there is more transit traffic flowing over HKG, not to attract visitors to HKG. It is a face-saving measure that admits HKG no longer has the O&D it did before because of both internal and external factors so the airport needs to be more proactive about attracting traffic.

Long term HKG is not in a bad place, quite literally, in between NE/SE Asia. But HKG is wising up to the fact that it cannot count on CX which might be working against it. It is not holding back: incentives for each route are up to US$1 million each, with no maximum.

I also suspect that CX being in OneWorld as opposed to the other alliances is a problem for HKG's reach. It's a historical connection when HKG was part of the anglo West. BA like CX operates a profit-maximizing single hub with market power and AA is no UA. Japan is trying to downplay HKG's hub role in everything.

BNE is an interesting comparison, those incentives are meant to build up organic interest before their Olympics, but carriers seem to be opportunistic about it by scaling back substitutes (like SYD) or perhaps scaling back BNE service once incentives end so sustainability is an issue.

The question now is why a foreign airline would pick HKG over others even with these incentives. HKG might be better off positioning itself as the long-haul airport for the GBA, like the Heathrow of the area. SZX/CAN have some very interesting destinations that HKG does not.

FCO as a tourism route is less profitable for CX as CTS and BCN are. I really have nothing against FCO and would love for CX to dominate Asia-Europe but I just think CX would devote its resources differently.

MXP has the luxury industry, which is important for HKG and for business traffic, it makes more sense to increase that to daily at least before thinking about FCO again. Italy is great but Spain has been developing more and is a key bridge to Latam. I would go as far to say Italy can be more popular for HKers touristically than Spain and CX might still pass FCO over for more Spain, especially MAD (IB territory). Tourist flows can go to ME3 or even the Shenzhen nonstop.

The reason BRI could be relevant is if Meloni/Italy rejoins BRI after backing out, which would make FCO fall under the BRI push by government, but it wouldn't be the sole reason for restarting FCO. It might help. We don't see CX fighting to get into Serbia or Hungary or Russia.

CX needs to keep NZ govt happy because operating CHC I believe is a precondition for the CX-NZ tie-up. It will stay as long as HKG-AKL outweighs any loss or foregone profit from operating CHC. CHC is probably interesting in its own right for UK and China transfer and cargo but the tie-up is a major reason.

How would WS service to HK open up service to mainland China? I doubt even the sketchiest Chinese airlines would be interested in 5 months/year partnerships.

I don't disagree FCO is not at the top of the list but think it will be back relatively soon given they are back to daily on ZRH etc. and ahead of the likes of DUB/BRU/DUS which I think you agree aren't coming back. I was surprised they brought back BCN before places like ZRH went daily but they have the numbers. Just playing around with their NW 2024 timetable, it seems Europe is where they are most behind on restoring their long haul schedule. Most of North America is back except NYC is reduced and most of Australia is back - even PER is 11x weekly.

I do think they will go back to SEA given the AS connections but time will tell. It would be great (for me personally) if they go back to IAD as well but every flight I was on, the load in J was less than 50% so I don't think that will be back unless they literally have nowhere else to send a plane.

Of course all of this is our speculation but like I said, if I was a betting man, I would put my money on FCO, ADL and SEA being restored. Anything else which hasn't come back yet seems doubtful to me.

IAD would be spectacular (obviously) but it was their longest route at the time and not a great performer. Who knows, it might be one of HKG's "Strategic routes"!

East coast routes are hard to add to as long as UA can't; they would push back hard against CX growing their monopoly advantage here. BOS and even ORD to daily is likelier than IAD again.

Now, I do think if Trump wins there's scope for a Russia deal that removes airspace restrictions for all, so UA reduces LAX for EWR. But CX can't count on that.

EWR would be likelier to return than IAD. CX held its own against UA. DFW would be interesting if AA never comes back but it's even longer than IAD (I think).

SFO/LAX are surprisingly thin when compared to UA's frequency additions; maybe UA will enjoy HKG incentives too! It feels like UA is using HKG as a de facto CAN/SZX as well.

If CX can lock US routes down then it can then add India to backfill capacity. I think that bilateral is limited, whereas the SIN bilateral allows more flow.

ORD is showing daily by Jan. I don't think they will go more than daily at BOS which they already are at. They have put back most of their schedule by beginning which is why I think any further port resumptions will be beginning of next year and if its not being resumed soon than its likely not going to ever be (IAD...)

I am not sure what UA can do at this stage other than complain loudly.

I am also not sure how lucrative India-US will be got CX going forward given how AI are improving and expanding.

I didn't realize those schedule upgrades. Great!

There's a high upfront fixed cost to adding a new outport (ground services, sales) so I think the bar can be high vs. adding frequency to an existing destination where there are already customers.

IAD is especially hard as US-China relations tense up and the US political class wants to reduce engagement with China. The US has asked companies to bypass HKG physically, financially, and morally for TYO/TPE/SIN across all industries now.

India just came to mind because it's a growth market, so even though Indigo and AI (and SQ) have that locked down maybe there's space for CX to capture some traffic, not just to US but also NE Asia.

Am I dreaming or did HKG have a fifth freedom right for one flight beyond the US, perhaps in return for HKG/SIN or similar? If so DFW and on to GRU would be an attractive move from my perspective. If PAX wish to avoid the US GRU could be reached with a stop in LUA, CPT or LOS.

As for filling the back of the plane there seem to be an unlimited number of PAX flying to or from MNL from almost anywhere in the world. How many seats need to be filled? Just adjust the price - they will come. I recently flew to MNL on a Tuesday afternoon. It was an A33P and every seat was taken.

I guess the problem is even CX wants to launch/resume a niche or tourism heavy market
They have no plane to use, 359 is literally too big for it after COVID. Not to mention CX's 359s (LRx) are stepping into their 6th year, meaning D-check is coming soon or undergoing D-checks.

If CX really want to go back to some EU port or US port, they must obtain some new planes before they could do so.
Some media are teasing CX will consider a mid-size fleet, If I am CX, I would consider a smaller plane (i.e. 787-8 or 330-900) to launch such route.

How wouldn't it?