I seem to recall, CX's old MLE route was heavy on transit pax from mainland China and to a lesser degree, from elsewhere in Asia.

I'm not privy to the yields but I could see it playing a role in the network given the transit demand, especially if CX is inclined to press those A330s back into service as crew staffing levels return to more adequate numbers in 2025-2026. And of course China's economy would probably have to be fine and CX would need to keep increasing their network to mainland China. As pointed out elsewhere, a lot of old KA routes are still missing from the network, including some to/from mainland China.

I don't think anyone is under the impression CX can serve a daily (or even 4-5x weekly) flight to MLE with mostly O&D demand ex-HKG.

I would take UO if the timing is good, rather than 1 stop on SQ or EK,QR, etc...

I remember a similar discussion ensued up thread when we were talking about former KA routes that have relaunched under UO post COVID. I was honestly stunned to see some people here claiming they would rather spend 9 hours (including layover) in KE or CI business class than 2 hours on UO to go to Hiroshima or Okinawa (my HIJ trips are typically one or two day affairs, so those extra 15 hours constitute a significant percentage of total duration).

I don't think it's 9 hours. I am one one of those and have done BR to OKA. It was under 5 hours. More typically, I'd do HX which in some ways I actually prefer to CX for Japan because of the empty J cabins.

I used to fly to/from Japan tier-2 markets on OZ, CI, or BR when nonstops weren't available from China or HK, and 9 hours was often the best I could do. I see that CI is a little better now, but 5.5 hours is still almost 3x more time consuming than nonstop.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...764fd12530.jpg

I guess it depends where you are going. HIJ is less than daily out of TPE whereas OKA has a bit more.

Curious to know - Have you considered just flying to FUK and then bullet train to HIJ? I havn't considered flying into/out of HIJ because it looks pretty far from actual Hiroshima and FUK is so close to Hakata anyways. Generally, if I have to go anywhere between TYO and FUK thats on the bullet train line, I just fly into KIX or FUK (or less ideally NRT) and taken a train given the frequency into those compared to second tier airports in Japan.

The airport was actually closer to my destination than Hiroshima Station, so HSR options didn't present much, if any, time savings. Plus, apart from CDG (and maybe EWR, I suppose), my experience with air/rail connections has been less than stellar (e.g. SHA might look good, in theory, but I dare you to try it from T1). In any event, if I ever need to go to HIJ again, that $130 UO flight would be an absolute godsend, regardless of how thin the seats are and/or if I can't even score a cup of water from the cabin crew.

For me, its also about having options in case something goes wrong or I need to change my plans so I would be minded to pick FUK over HIJ for example even if it took say an hour or two. Everyone has their preferences and its always interesting to hear what others priortise.

I have had a bit more positive experiences with air/rail connections. FRA, ZRH and VIE have all worked well for me for example. The thing I don't like about EWR is that a lot of Acelas don't stop there. I end up having to get an Uber from actual Newark station usually but that doesn't take long.

I guess QR's ~10% shareholding in CX gives them some say in this.

I'm not sure if HX was on this route before but they also have a mainland network and can have better pricing than CX. In addition to planning to serve HK, BeOnd is also pushing into the mainland and will even serve mainland cities sooner. A number of Chinese airlines also serve Male direct. That's a lot of competition for CX re: mainland connections.

I would go so far as to say it can be better than CX itself for short flights. I recently flew UO to Japan and CX back. UO: small new plane, so quick on and off experience. Cheerful crew. They gave me a personal greeting and confirmed my preordered meal (only 35 HKD for french toast in the sky) would be served to me just after takeoff, before any other service, and it was. I felt like I had premium status with them! And for the short flight I didn't mind no entertainment or a larger free meal. CX by contrast was a relatively typical Y experience but felt like an impersonal crowded cattle car after that.

The thing is European air->rail connections can be much better than Japan or the US. CDG and FRA both have direct connections to rail mainlines. By contrast, landing at KIX you're a long train ride away from the Shinkansen/mainline connection in Osaka, even on the Haruka Express.

--

In other news, Indian media reports one additional flight per week planned on the Chennai route, with the introduction of PE:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...1.cms?from=mdr

I have flown UO before and agree the crew are excellent. Even better than CX I would say but maybe its a question of lower expectations.

The main reason I avoid UO to be honest is the clientele. Fighting over bin space, self reassigning seats, complaining about baggage fees. Its just a nuisance. At least on CX, you can self quarantine J but on those Japan routes, even in J there is at least one set of those parents who don't even try to control their kids.

Haruka Express is long but it does go to Kyoto if you're going there anyways and its still pretty convenient on both ends so I don't mind. I have managed to go from stepping off the plane to being on Haruka Express in 15 minutes (with some very speedy walking). ZRH is probably my favourite for air/rail connections.

Interesting; I felt like the crowd on UO was actually better behaved too. Mostly local HKers going to Japan for tourism so already walking the walk in terms of politeness culture maybe. By contrast the return flight on CX had people from all over the world with very different habits and I had a gruff companion sitting next to me who was initially in my seat and not happy about being asked to move, and it was a chore asking him to do so as he didn't seem to speak any language I knew.

Note normally I would never speak ill of CX passengers just in this case the contrast stood out - other competing airlines can be far worse.

any country, city or airline has a chance to have uncivilized or horrible passengers, no matter where they are located or their financial situation, just because its not UO doesn't mean you wouldn't find a disruptive passenger on CX or other full service airlines around the world- last year CX and UO was on the news for a sizeable amount of those. its really a hit or miss, sometimes you would get amazing cabin crew and a great journey- sometimes it can be a complete disaster.

there is a increasing trend of passengers being entitled and disruptive nowadays especially after covid and recent world events, so I think this is a worldwide issue, and I'm sure there would be quite a number of these cases this year as well.

If you read what I said, I did not say not UO = not disruptive. In fact I said there are disruptive passengers on CX too. I have seen passengers be offloaded on FSC and honestly I wish it would happen often given as you say, the rise of distruptive passengers.

I just find it worse on UO (and LLCs). My two cents is all the fees charged by UO (and LLCs) means the passengers are more likely to resort to trying "self help" or arguing with check in/crew.

I recall someone here said QR was not giving CX customers good married segment availability when CX operated HKG-DOH, so CX had to pull out. It matches my experience when looking up availabilities during those times, but not sure if it is CX's problem or QR's problem.

CX operated DOH from 2014 to 2015 and had a massive code-share network via DOH then. QR only got the CX shares in 2017, but the collaboration was never restored to the same extent. Interesting, and we will see how it goes.