HKIA is going to have a lot of slots to fill with the debut of the third runway system and Terminal 2, and the HK government is introducing cash incentives for more airlines and flights, targeting Europe and North America especially, so I think that might not be that big a problem for BA (cynically, one even wonders if they might be trying to get HK government cash for reintroducing the flight down the line...)

Oh:

“He [Law Cheung-kwok, senior adviser at the Chinese University of Hong Kong’s Aviation Policy Research Centre] pointed out that Cathay had a competitive edge over British Airways, as the city’s flag carrier enjoyed a shorter journey time of about 12 hours, compared with 14 hours by the latter.”

“Corrected [3:01pm, 20 Jul, 2024]

• [3:01pm, 20 Jul, 2024]This story has been updated to reflect a clarification from Cathay regarding an expert's comparison of flight times with British Airways.”
  

sadly, i think slots are a relic of the past. nowadays there is so much more potential for capacity (even not counting terminal 2) and mainland Chinese carriers are flying way more to HK now.

i think the pandemic rules and system left a really bad impression on foriegn airlines...

Both BA and CX avoid Russian airspace to/from LHR, so theoretically they shouldn't run vastly different flight times. I've flown European airlines that went further south but even then, it's usually 13 hours westbound.

Those cash incentives are really nothing. The landing fee discount ended early this year and they re-package it as a new cash incentives lol

CX continues to add capacity. In June 2024 it was up 30% over 30% over June 2023. However it was still only 66.6% of its capacity in 2019. To reach 100% will require a 50% increase in capacity from here. The greatest recovery to 2019 level by region continued to be SW Pacific at 80.8%, whereas the weakest was China at 50.5% followed by Europe at 58.7%. A worrying factor for CX must be that the LF at 83.5% continues to be below that of 2019 when it was 86.7%. This brings into question whether it is shortage of qualified crew (an explanation that I have long subscribed to) or rather shortage of PAX, certainly not shortage of fleet capacity.

I took a look at the SQ figures as they are the closest equivalent. SQ's load factor in June 2024 was 87.1%. SQ was higher in every region except Europe where presumably CX's low recovery of capacity lifted it higher to 89.0% compared to SQ's 87.4%. I understand that SQ did not suffer the restrictive hand from the north but one would expect the LF to be higher if the problem was delayed rebuilding of capacity while demand remained.

I took the opportunity to look at their fleets. CX at about 157 passenger planes compared to SQ's 144 shows CX about 10% larger. This is while CX's ASK of 9146M in June was only 80.1% of SQ's 11310M. CX should have no restriction due to its fleet until it tries to grow by at least more than 35%. However what stood out was the make up of the two fleets. Both have similar long haul fleets, SQ 74 (comprising 12 A380s, 22 777ERs and 40 A350s) compared to CX's 85 (37 777ERs and 48 A350s). Single aisle fleets are SQ's 23 737s (800s and MAXs) compares to CX's 12 A321s with 4 more coming this year. But the wide bodied medium and short haul fleets diverge significantly. SQ has 47 latest generation 787s and A350s while CX has 60 previous generation A330s and 777-300s. And the rumours are that CX is going to buy more rehashed cheapo previous generation A330s, joining the LCCs and second rate airlines. SQ's oldest frame is a 777ER with 17.7 years but CX has dozens older with the oldest at 26.5 years. I say this with sorrow. I, now retired, fly almost exclusively regionally. I prefer CX to SQ, particularly their cabin crews, lounges and even business class seats, which on regionally configured aircraft are a rip off. But the suggestion that CX are going to avoid buying the latest generation aircraft, even though they will probably be with them until after 2050 since they have a history of trying to get the maximum life span out of their fleet, drives me to believe that they have lost their way. Sir John must be turning in his grave.

I doubt they'll be able to get China back up to previous levels without relying heavily on UO because fares are dirt cheap on pretty much all of their prior routes now (i.e when they pulled out, mainland carriers inserted themselves in the vacuum at every opportunity).

Good point. When CX CEO talks about 100% of pre-covid capacity by 1Q 2025, how exactly are they calculating that - I wonder. CX + UO vs CX + KA + UO? Even then, it seems like a challenge if HK to Mainland China will not reach pre-Covid levels.

It is CX+UO vs CX+KA+UO. Now it is more than 80% of 2019 level and some new destinations will be announced by this year. Flight numbers will reach 2019 level but it will be more leaning to UO.

i really don't think those rumors is trustable, especially when many more credible sources and CX itself says its considering A330neo, A350 or B787. They would announce it by year end. Also their old A330 should be getting a new look soon

The A330neo is like turkey the day after Boxing Day.

problem with 787 n A350 is their delivery lead time. If CX place order in 2024, most likely they will get the planes in 2030 onwards?

CX said their target first delivery time was around 2028. Both A350 and B787 still have some slots in 2028.

By the way several weeks ago Air France-KLM placed an order for 50 A350 and the first bird will arrive in 2026.
https://www.airfranceklm.com/en/news...hase-rights-40

Whats wrong with the 330neo?

I prefer that turkey to 787 or 350 given the 2-4-2 seating.

I never sit in economy. I was greatly impressed by the JAL A350 when hit by another aircraft. Airlines claim that safety is their number one priority. Let's see if an airline that claims to be premium is willing to pay for it.