![]() |
Originally Posted by derek2010
(Post 36129131)
Cathay needs to resume HKG-DOH route, using aircraft with Aria suite / A350-1000 / A350-900, to compete wuth Qatar, which uses former CX B777-300ER to operate
|
Originally Posted by gwang0618
(Post 36129271)
Hell no. theres a reason QR serves this route double daily. CX has no firepower to spare on secondary destinations that has fierce competition. This route I can bet is probably more for transit as well, and QR probably serves it as a OW agreement between the two.
Unless changed recently, QR leases CX's 773s to operate the HKG-DOH. Focusing on the J cabin, the hard product from the lounge to the seat is identical for this route. The only difference is the soft product on board where QR excels. You get a nicer amenity kit, PJs, and dine-on-demand with better alcohol. I see no reason why J Flyers would pick CX over QR for this route. |
Originally Posted by cxwaterboy
(Post 36129671)
This route should be a transit one, fitting QR's business model and hard for CX to compete.
Unless changed recently, QR leases CX's 773s to operate the HKG-DOH. Focusing on the J cabin, the hard product from the lounge to the seat is identical for this route. The only difference is the soft product on board where QR excels. You get a nicer amenity kit, PJs, and dine-on-demand with better alcohol. I see no reason why J Flyers would pick CX over QR for this route. |
Originally Posted by gwang0618
(Post 36129703)
put all product things aside, this is clearly a transit flight - maybe for example PHL to HKG or Africa-HKG or Texas-HKG, whatsoever. In that case, what good does it do for CX to fly here?
BA and QF both fly LHR-DOH but they have codeshares to destinations such as BKK. |
Budapest got a lot of secondary Chinese city flights in 2023, I believe at one point they had more weekly Mainland China flights than the entirety of USA!
For Brisbane in particular, I'd actually argue they're following the subsidies, rather than the competition ;) Whatever it takes to get people in the door for the 2032 Olympics, eh? |
Originally Posted by majorpuppy
(Post 36129217)
SEA and BNE are recent good examples that most airlines only follow the competition. glad cathay is smart enough not to do this
do you mean CX is flocking back to BNE cuz others are? (but SEA isnt). i beg to differ but SEA and BNE is very teo different type of destination. i fly yo BNE every 4weeks so i know somewhat what i am talking about. |
Originally Posted by 18wheeler_vanrekt
(Post 36130299)
Budapest got a lot of secondary Chinese city flights in 2023, I believe at one point they had more weekly Mainland China flights than the entirety of USA!
|
Originally Posted by 18wheeler_vanrekt
(Post 36130299)
Budapest got a lot of secondary Chinese city flights in 2023, I believe at one point they had more weekly Mainland China flights than the entirety of USA!
|
Certainly it's the USA's fault (and Russian Airspace by extension), and Orban's gov't is certainly subsidizing 'em, just thought it was wild given Hungary's population of 9Mil, and USA's... 300Mil+? Not to mention the economic disparity between the two, ofc
|
Originally Posted by gwang0618
(Post 36130984)
Secondly I think its rather a US-too-less-flights issue rather than a huge amount of budapest flights.
|
From before the pandemic: JFK to… Fuzhou?!?!? on Xiamen Airlines?!?!?
SFO to Qingdao always struck me as particularly useless The USA destination city always made sense tho, typically one of LAX/JFK/SFO, maybe Seattle |
Originally Posted by fakecd
(Post 36130335)
please elaboate
do you mean CX is flocking back to BNE cuz others are? (but SEA isnt). i beg to differ but SEA and BNE is very teo different type of destination. i fly yo BNE every 4weeks so i know somewhat what i am talking about. |
Airlines like HU and MF have to settle for whatever BJS and SHA city pairs CA and MU don't want (they obviously do want LAX, NYC, SFO, but they don't care so much about BOS, SEA, HNL) OR routes to important markets from China tier 2 cities (so MF can fly to LAX or NYC, but its choices are quite limited on the China side).
What sets the BUD routes apart from these is that you have insignificant cities on both ends. With that in mind, please share any relevant examples that you know of. |
Originally Posted by cxwaterboy
(Post 36129671)
This route should be a transit one, fitting QR's business model and hard for CX to compete.
Unless changed recently, QR leases CX's 773s to operate the HKG-DOH. Focusing on the J cabin, the hard product from the lounge to the seat is identical for this route. The only difference is the soft product on board where QR excels. You get a nicer amenity kit, PJs, and dine-on-demand with better alcohol. I see no reason why J Flyers would pick CX over QR for this route. but the launch of HKG-DOH with Aria suites, may get QR deploy q suites planes to HKG, like what they now doing with SIN route How about Cathay resuming HKG - SEA / EWR / DFW ? |
Originally Posted by derek2010
(Post 36131156)
How about Cathay resuming HKG - SEA / EWR / DFW ?
HKG is not longer the city it used to be and CX is a tarnished brand. Of course most people on here think that Budapest and Riyadh are more lucrative than SEA, EWR and DFW. But basic stats like, Income per capita, % of expats, GDP and other airlines are all ignored cause clearly all other airlines are foolish . as I have said before expect direct flights to random cities as CX can't compete effectively anymore to economic power house cities and is bleeding market share. If the QF and NZ management were competing against the current CX executives back in the early 2000s they would have never even left the LHR route.
Originally Posted by majorpuppy
(Post 36131118)
no cx flew to BNE since a very long time ago, its just CX knows how to avoid over saturated markets and focus on monopoly routes (such as HKG-JFK being 3 daily now as competition is much less and cathay gets to fly over russia)
And had at least 3 first class flights daily. Also had a daily EWR flight. And a 4 weekly flight to DC. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:52 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.