SQ, QR ETC are all also in massive profits.

Pretty sure SQ gave an 8 month bonus vs CX's meagre 1 month...

But idk I guess using your logic. SQ and EK are burning money at Adelaide while CX is wisely losing marketshare....

I understand your comment about Texas. Houston has a large population and much international business whereas Dallas has flight connections for One World.

But for your other comments are you sure that Cathay has the qualified crew and aircraft to return its capacity to what it had in 2019? Personally I don't believe so. Therefore it makes sense to continuously add flights including restoring some ports to earn the maximum profit with its available resources as and when they become available..

I offer this chart without further comment...

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...660ca80e55.jpg
From: x.com/hkafofficial/status/1881869389458542947
(the HK Aviation Forum)

Thank you so much!!!

Hopefully people finally see that CX has lost market share and can't compete like they did in 2019.

I think just ignore him. Average troll hater behaviour, posting the same things every single time consistency. Responding only makes him spam more and more. he has a massive grudge on Cathay for something I think.

Cathay has a massive service expansion next summer, so time would tell how well it does by then. Right now load factors are very good, so clearly some people still choose Cathay. Though I do agree Cathay could improve and innovate more in the future.

That graph includes Dragonair, by the way, so it's not too realistic

I believe that the chart is indeed realistic. Dragonair was a full service carrier that was absorbed by Cathay, similar to Silk Air and Singapore Airlines.. When Cathay purchased Hong Kong Express they said that it was a budget carrier that would operate completely separately from Cathay and this is how it has been operated.
The confusion seems to have come from someone high up in Cathay originally announcing that it would restore its 2019 capacity by 2024.. They then realised that was totally unrealistic and they switched the statement from capacity to flights and increased the coverage to the whole group so that they could claim that they achieved the objective recovery. Sadly this sort of questionable wriggling is often found in big companies, especially those with a PR function. .

Hahaha, I'm laughing to death. According to Wikipedia, in 2023, DFW had 81.7 million passengers, while IAH only had 46 million, almost half of DFW. Therefore, the conclusion is actually the opposite of yours. It is insufficient for EVA to ONLY fly to *A hub IAH; they have to add DFW. Meanwhile, it is sufficient for CX to fly into DFW both because it is much larger than IAH and because it is an OW hub, killing two birds with one stone. I don't see ANY reason for CX to fly into IAH, a small *A hub.

DFW is Fortress AA. It makes sense for CX to fly there with the AA network(FWIW). It is also the TX South business centre.

IAH was Continental's hub. They merged with UA. There is minimal OW presence there so it makes more sense for BR to go IAH and do *A connections. Houston is also more energy-based.

I'm still astonished people buy into the "lost market share" argument as something entirely internal to the way CX is run like Covid measures political disruption, the timing of plane deliveries etc. were entirely within the airline's control. How many times have we been over this?

I'm astonished by people not understanding the business rationale for putting UO on former KA routes. However, I do think limiting lounge access and other perks on UO flights is kind of silly on management's part. Basically, since they decided to make UO play a role in the network, they should own it (like nearly every other airline that uses regional subsidiaries or partners).

CX got taxpayer money to stay afloat.
they could have kept their pilots and not given their planes to QR and Air NZ.

Regardless they are way behind in recovery and it is what it is.

What i am shocked at is posters forcing people to pretend that CX has recovered and is just as competitive as it was pre covid.

​​​​​​ Didn't they try to retain as many local pilots (i.e. the HK tax payers) as possible? I'm sure you agree that, in addition to being fiscally prudent, it was quite proper for them to refrain from propping up expat pilots on bloated compensation packages with that taxpayer money during the pandemic induced downturn. Well done!:tu:

MainlyMiles posts data showing really good load factors for SQ on SEA-SIN and speculates it's partly caused by lack of competition from CX:

https://mainlymiles.com/2025/01/26/s...weekly-flight/

Are we overestimating the bloodbath and lack of market there?

Whether or not we're over estimating, the lens of "is the expected return on capital of SEA > X?" still needs to be considered.

There is a market.
They just don't want to fly CX.
Just like CX can't fill a flight between BKK and SIN anymore...