|
CX traffic figures
CX and UO traffic figures for June 2025
Abbreviation Available Seat Kilometres “ASK” Revenue Passenger Kilometres “RPK” CX Jun 25 (CX+KA Jun 18) ASK(000): 11,539,073 (12,794,574) % Change VS JUNE 2024: 26.2% Cumulative June 2025: 66,792,464 RPK(000): 9,876,538 (10,908,153) % Change VS JUNE 2024: 29.3% Cumulative June 2025: 56,650,891 Passengers carried: 2,300,801 (2,925,385) % Change VS JUNE 2024: 25.2% Cumulative June 2025: 13,626,576 Load factor: 85.6% UO Jun 25 ASK(000): 1,452,824 % Change VS JUNE 2024: 32.1% Cumulative June 2025: 8,810,411 RPK(000): 1,023,720 % Change VS JUNE 2024: 8.1% Cumulative June 2025: 6,947,494 Passengers carried: 582,886 % Change VS JUNE 2024: 16.5% Cumulative June 2025: 3,790,933 Load factor: 70.5% CX+UO Jun 25 (CX+KA Jun 18) ASK(000): 12,991,897 (12,794,574) RPK(000): 10,900,258 (10,908,153) Passengers carried: 2,883,687 (2,925,385) New routes / service resumes: UO 31/7 KWE (Guiyang) UO 1/8 SZB (Kuala Lumpur) CX 3/8 BRU (Brussels) CX 11/11 ADL (Adelaide) UO 27/11 BKI (Kota Kinabalu) Brussels ------ (edited) traffic figures for Jan to May (passenger carried and load factor only) Jan Passenger carried: CX: 2,352,242 UO: 667,079 CX + UO: 3,019,321 Load factor: CX: 86.4% UO: 84.6% Feb Passenger carried: CX: 2,058,938 UO:585,941 CX + UO: 2,644,879 Load factor: CX: 82.9% UO: 79.9% Mar Passenger carried: CX: 2,256,242 UO: 616,098 CX + UO: 2,872,340 Load factor: CX:82.7% UO: 79.0% Apr Passenger carried: CX: 2,373,541 UO: 695,607 CX + UO: 3,069,148 Load factor: CX:86.4% UO: 85.2% May Passenger carried: CX: 2,284,812 UO: 643,322 CX + UO: 2,928,134 Load factor: CX:84.7% UO: 74.1% |
What's surprising is the UO load factor. For a low cost airline - ouch. Scoot was 92.2%. Swire obviously haven't got the hang of how to run an LCC yet.
|
Originally Posted by peasant
(Post 37229037)
What's surprising is the UO load factor. For a low cost airline - ouch. Scoot was 92.2%. Swire obviously haven't got the hang of how to run an LCC yet.
Unless the destination is solely provided by UO, I avoid it purely because its price runs so close to full service airline, |
Originally Posted by peasant
(Post 37229037)
What's surprising is the UO load factor. For a low cost airline - ouch. Scoot was 92.2%. Swire obviously haven't got the hang of how to run an LCC yet.
|
Originally Posted by jyuen
(Post 37229066)
UO ticket with luggage runs very close to some full service airline eg HK air.
Unless the destination is solely provided by UO, I avoid it purely because its price runs so close to full service airline, |
Deleted
|
No reason to ever fly UO - it’s nearly the same
price as CX with a fraction of the service. They should just call it “Cathay Connect” put in their a320 business class seats and shut down the HK express brand. |
Originally Posted by wadia13
(Post 37230626)
Interesting, you reference "CX + KA Jun 18" but I don't see any June 2018 figures in your post. That would be an interesting comparison.
|
Originally Posted by Freddorick
(Post 37230677)
No reason to ever fly UO - it’s nearly the same
price as CX with a fraction of the service. They should just call it “Cathay Connect” put in their a320 business class seats and shut down the HK express brand. KA was at least profitable |
Originally Posted by CX HK
(Post 37230743)
Are they not the figures in brackets?
|
Looking at the last available financial results for Scoot, their breakeven load factor is almost 90%! For comparison, Ryanair's is 84%. Meanwhile, even AirAsia is still not profitable with a 89% load factor.
But then, I've always scored very cheap fares with UO - significantly cheaper than the main line. Not sure how the others are playing the LCC game but they've got plenty of super specials happening throughout the year. You just need to know how to play that and make your trip truly LCC - no add-ons and be super flexible with timing. |
i think another main reason is UO heavily capacity dumping to every regional destination that was ever possible near HK. the agressive expansion in just these 6 months alone is already insanity, its at least double the pre-covid size. combined with the japan fear im not suprised by this load factor.... suprised it wasnt lower.
UO has caused many foriegn airlines to leave these markets or heavily reduce capacity, because of poor passenger amounts. in the end no one wins.... but it does connect HK with a lot of new nonstop destinations. |
Originally Posted by majorpuppy
(Post 37231099)
i think another main reason is UO heavily capacity dumping to every regional destination that was ever possible near HK. the agressive expansion in just these 6 months alone is already insanity, its at least double the pre-covid size. combined with the japan fear im not suprised by this load factor.... suprised it wasnt lower.
UO has caused many foriegn airlines to leave these markets or heavily reduce capacity, because of poor passenger amounts. in the end no one wins.... but it does connect HK with a lot of new nonstop destinations. |
Government grants help boosting the low load factor a bit I reckon. As an example, the load factor from Hong Kong to Hualien in June was 42.3%, but UO still maintains the service level. Some routes might seem "profitable" thanks to those grants.
Btw, half of UO's A320neo and an A320-200 aircraft are still grounded, which is definitely slowing down their network growth. |
Apart from the other factors mentioned, UO is a heavily HK origin passenger focused airline and doesn't get the connecting traffic of CX. The market segment it serves is also lower income (yes maybe comparable after baggage fees etc. but not everyone is paying those). It might reflect that there is not enough spending power at the moment at the lower end of the HK market segment to keep those planes full in comparison to Scoot.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 5:41 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.