FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Cathay Pacific | Marco Polo Club (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-marco-polo-club-487/)
-   -   CX Routes with First Class? (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/cathay-pacific-marco-polo-club/1648540-cx-routes-first-class.html)

QRC3288 Jan 5, 17 12:56 am


Originally Posted by Ausriver (Post 27707238)
Very very good point but I don't felt ex-Australia F are that cheap, at least QF never discounted their F product and rarely discount their J product.

I totally agree with not pulling off those 77Hs from premium heavy routes, but what about those 77Hs on the routes been replaced by a359? Just one is perfectly enough for SYD to have daily F service and carry more cargo and PEY & J seats than A333. And, CX can sell SYD-LHR in F then.

Yea, there a valid question about where the spare 77Hs will go if they come off ZRH, MXP and FRA etc. as rumored. So far, the rumors haven't come true except for DUS, which barely had 77H anyway.

One thinking I have is these old 77Ws (all 77H) need the longer form checks. The oldest is coming up on 10 years old. CX might need to roll some out of service for a while.

Another consideration is that CX will announce some 77H increased frequencies or new routes, if they follow through and remove more 77H from Europe. But..........one thing not to forget: in March, CX increases Boston to daily, effectively utilizing the 77H spare frame which came off DUS . I think CX really needs to cut another 77H service if they're to launch a new one. And of course, if they launch a new one, they'd have to explain why SYD....and not LHR, SFO, EWR, etc. wouldn't get it. LHR is running 77G to deal with slots don't forget. With the launch of LGW, it's not inconceiveable that CX could revert one of the 77G frequencies to LHR to 77H. Similar with SFO, EWR, etc. If CX were to go daily on the 3rd SFO flight, perhaps one of the other two goes to 77H. You get my point. F yields to Australia are tough, competition is fierce to that market, it's not a big market to begin with, and to top it off the flight isn't TOO long and 9 hours in CX J is certainly "good enough" even if not ideal.

The final consideration is maybe CX won't swap 77H off those Europe routes after all. In which case, when combined with the upcoming BOS service increase, there aren't spare 77H frames after all.

This question has popped up again and again over the last decade since CX started cutting F to Australia and NZ, and there just hasn't been any sign of reinstating it.

Ausriver Jan 5, 17 1:31 am


Originally Posted by QRC3288 (Post 27707307)
Yea, there a valid question about where the spare 77Hs will go if they come off ZRH, MXP and FRA etc. as rumored. So far, the rumors haven't come true except for DUS, which barely had 77H anyway.

One thinking I have is these old 77Ws (all 77H) need the longer form checks. The oldest is coming up on 10 years old. CX might need to roll some out of service for a while.

Another consideration is that CX will announce some 77H increased frequencies or new routes, if they follow through and remove more 77H from Europe. But..........one thing not to forget: in March, CX increases Boston to daily, effectively utilizing the 77H spare frame which came off DUS . I think CX really needs to cut another 77H service if they're to launch a new one. And of course, if they launch a new one, they'd have to explain why SYD....and not LHR, SFO, EWR, etc. wouldn't get it. LHR is running 77G to deal with slots don't forget. With the launch of LGW, it's not inconceiveable that CX could revert one of the 77G frequencies to LHR to 77H. Similar with SFO, EWR, etc. If CX were to go daily on the 3rd SFO flight, perhaps one of the other two goes to 77H. You get my point. F yields to Australia are tough, competition is fierce to that market, it's not a big market to begin with, and to top it off the flight isn't TOO long and 9 hours in CX J is certainly "good enough" even if not ideal.

The final consideration is maybe CX won't swap 77H off those Europe routes after all. In which case, when combined with the upcoming BOS service increase, there aren't spare 77H frames after all.

This question has popped up again and again over the last decade since CX started cutting F to Australia and NZ, and there just hasn't been any sign of reinstating it.


There must be enough reasons for SYD not to have F. SYD-HKG is my most frequent rout with CX and every time I fly, J class always seems full so I thought there might be enough demand for F. And if there is big demand for J and little demand for F in HKG-SYD, we DMs are most likely to be enjoying F at cost of J :D:D

ieuan1 Jan 6, 17 10:32 pm

For Australasia it seems to me that there is not enough demand from 'paying' passengers down here (as opposed to upgrades etc) for F. Most businesses would only pay for J, and if you were senior enough to get F, then your firm would probably encourage you to fly on QF or NZ (the latter not even having first class). There probably aren't enough people down here prepared to pay F fares from their own pocket.

MeltingAlf Jan 7, 17 12:00 pm


Originally Posted by Ausriver (Post 27707392)
There must be enough reasons for SYD not to have F. SYD-HKG is my most frequent rout with CX and every time I fly, J class always seems full so I thought there might be enough demand for F. And if there is big demand for J and little demand for F in HKG-SYD, we DMs are most likely to be enjoying F at cost of J :D:D

Your reply just shows you're missing the entire explanation QRC has kindly offered. CX as a business exists to maximise yield, not to op-up DMs to F from J. A full J is no representation of the demand of F. Companies are willing to pay for extra exorbitant J tixs, but getting F even at a price cheaper than J will get everyone from senior management to auditors hanged, drawn and quartered.

Ausriver Jan 7, 17 8:45 pm


Originally Posted by MeltingAlf (Post 27721152)
Your reply just shows you're missing the entire explanation QRC has kindly offered. CX as a business exists to maximise yield, not to op-up DMs to F from J. A full J is no representation of the demand of F. Companies are willing to pay for extra exorbitant J tixs, but getting F even at a price cheaper than J will get everyone from senior management to auditors hanged, drawn and quartered.

I am sure there is reasons for CX not to have F. The service was took away about 10 years ago, maybe it didn't work out back then. However, there were only 3 or 4 flights to China a day from SYD back then. Look at the traffic now, there are about 20 flights a day to China from SYD, most secondary cities in China offers direct flights to SYD. Both CZ and QF are using A380s during Dec, Jan and Feb. And also if considering all the transit traffic to Europe and NA? I doubt it would be that hard to CX to sell 6 F seats a day for SYD while there are about over 5000 seats sold between SYD and China alone on daily basis.

1010101 Jan 7, 17 10:30 pm


Originally Posted by Ausriver (Post 27723203)
I am sure there is reasons for CX not to have F. The service was took away about 10 years ago, maybe it didn't work out back then. However, there were only 3 or 4 flights to China a day from SYD back then. Look at the traffic now, there are about 20 flights a day to China from SYD, most secondary cities in China offers direct flights to SYD. Both CZ and QF are using A380s during Dec, Jan and Feb. And also if considering all the transit traffic to Europe and NA? I doubt it would be that hard to CX to sell 6 F seats a day for SYD while there are about over 5000 seats sold between SYD and China alone on daily basis.

Just look at the list of destinations in the wiki, 6 of the most important cities in North America and the 4 capitals of Europe + Switzerland. I'm sure CX would add F if they could, but not at the expense of any of those destinations. Now they have more slack on the 77H fleet maybe they will resume sending F cabins to SYD although the Australian economy is not exactly making a case for it.

MeltingAlf Jan 8, 17 7:01 am


Originally Posted by Ausriver (Post 27723203)
I am sure there is reasons for CX not to have F. The service was took away about 10 years ago, maybe it didn't work out back then. However, there were only 3 or 4 flights to China a day from SYD back then. Look at the traffic now, there are about 20 flights a day to China from SYD, most secondary cities in China offers direct flights to SYD. Both CZ and QF are using A380s during Dec, Jan and Feb. And also if considering all the transit traffic to Europe and NA? I doubt it would be that hard to CX to sell 6 F seats a day for SYD while there are about over 5000 seats sold between SYD and China alone on daily basis.

*sigh* It's not as simple as just about selling 6 F seats a day. QRC and many others have offered the reasons repeatedly, and I'm going to reiterate on the most important ones.

It's about the lack of F equipment - the scarcity of which means CX will deploy them to high-yield places where there is more-than-ample demand (note the more) where they can jack up prices. CX probably could sell 6 F seats to Australia, sure. But they could also sell 6 F seats to say SFO/LAX, and SFO/LAX may have higher demand. So you jack up the price so that you get enough demand for 6 at a higher price. Voila. If it's just about selling 6 F seats, I could throw them to places like Kota Kinabalu and get it over with by drastically lowering the F price, but it wouldn't make sense from a profit-maximising basis.

6 more F seats also means a reduction in J and Y seats - the plane isn't going to mysteriously increase space unless CX goes and buy something bigger to replace the 77G and 77H. If CX is doing so well selling out the J and Y cabin as you say, they could be making more profit on these than 6 F seats. Why then, would CX swap out for an uncertainty in the F demand when profit is certain on the J and below cabins?


Originally Posted by 1010101 (Post 27723478)
Just look at the list of destinations in the wiki, 6 of the most important cities in North America and the 4 capitals of Europe + Switzerland. I'm sure CX would add F if they could, but not at the expense of any of those destinations. Now they have more slack on the 77H fleet maybe they will resume sending F cabins to SYD although the Australian economy is not exactly making a case for it.

And 1010101 has provided the second one. The Australian economy isn't making a case for it. And Mainland Chinese people are likely to travel direct with Chinese carriers rather than go through CX. 5000 seats can be sold between China and SYD daily, but who's taking most of the bulk and growth? And what are the demographics of these people? Travellers? Chinese businessmen? Carriers like CZ, CA, MU, or smaller ones like Xiamen or Hainan launching to second and third tier Chinese cities are the one expanding this market. And the volume of the market doesn't determine nor indicate the yield of the market as well - you could very well just be transporting busloads of Y and zilch premium traffic.

Flame3601 Jan 14, 17 1:09 pm

So quick question, i have the family in F from HKG-BKK and wanted to know the following:

- What happens if a swap occurs and F is now unavailable , do you still get placed in J even if J is full or is it economy/next flight option ?
- Do i still get access to the Pier ( First class lounge ) if we get placed down from F to J ?

Thanks :)

kamchatsky Jan 16, 17 4:57 am


Originally Posted by QRC3288 (Post 27707307)
Yea, there a valid question about where the spare 77Hs will go if they come off ZRH, MXP and FRA etc. as rumored. So far, the rumors haven't come true except for DUS, which barely had 77H anyway.

One thinking I have is these old 77Ws (all 77H) need the longer form checks. The oldest is coming up on 10 years old. CX might need to roll some out of service for a while.

Another consideration is that CX will announce some 77H increased frequencies or new routes, if they follow through and remove more 77H from Europe. But..........one thing not to forget: in March, CX increases Boston to daily, effectively utilizing the 77H spare frame which came off DUS . I think CX really needs to cut another 77H service if they're to launch a new one. And of course, if they launch a new one, they'd have to explain why SYD....and not LHR, SFO, EWR, etc. wouldn't get it. LHR is running 77G to deal with slots don't forget. With the launch of LGW, it's not inconceiveable that CX could revert one of the 77G frequencies to LHR to 77H. Similar with SFO, EWR, etc. If CX were to go daily on the 3rd SFO flight, perhaps one of the other two goes to 77H. You get my point. F yields to Australia are tough, competition is fierce to that market, it's not a big market to begin with, and to top it off the flight isn't TOO long and 9 hours in CX J is certainly "good enough" even if not ideal.

The final consideration is maybe CX won't swap 77H off those Europe routes after all. In which case, when combined with the upcoming BOS service increase, there aren't spare 77H frames after all.

This question has popped up again and again over the last decade since CX started cutting F to Australia and NZ, and there just hasn't been any sign of reinstating it.

I think a lot of us here (myself included) want to see CX bringing F to SYD. All CX needs is 1 frame with F to SYD for daily rotation, rather than having 2 or more frames to Europe and North America.

SQ has multiple Suites and F flights to SYD (and MEL) daily, and the flights are like 7.5-8 hours long at most. So with SYD-HKG being 9 hours, surely the flight is not too short for F.

SYD already has QF F lounge which is one of the best F lounge around, so lounge for CX F passengers is not an issue.

Given the growth of China market there is definitely a huge opportunity to bring F to SYD, especially with all those m/billionaires from China buying up big in SYD over last 10 years. With CX and KA serving a lot of destinations in China, there is certainly a market for it now than before, even with CZ/MU/CA etc expanding.

I do think the market is there for CX to introduce it, but they are not yet confident enough to bring it back. In many ways that's why I love SQ more than CX. They serve Suites/Fs to SYD/MEL with shorter flight times, and dare to introduce SIN-CBR-WLG flights to open up new markets.

Ausriver Jan 18, 17 2:43 am


Originally Posted by kamchatsky (Post 27768550)
I think a lot of us here (myself included) want to see CX bringing F to SYD. All CX needs is 1 frame with F to SYD for daily rotation, rather than having 2 or more frames to Europe and North America.

SQ has multiple Suites and F flights to SYD (and MEL) daily, and the flights are like 7.5-8 hours long at most. So with SYD-HKG being 9 hours, surely the flight is not too short for F.

SYD already has QF F lounge which is one of the best F lounge around, so lounge for CX F passengers is not an issue.

Given the growth of China market there is definitely a huge opportunity to bring F to SYD, especially with all those m/billionaires from China buying up big in SYD over last 10 years. With CX and KA serving a lot of destinations in China, there is certainly a market for it now than before, even with CZ/MU/CA etc expanding.

I do think the market is there for CX to introduce it, but they are not yet confident enough to bring it back. In many ways that's why I love SQ more than CX. They serve Suites/Fs to SYD/MEL with shorter flight times, and dare to introduce SIN-CBR-WLG flights to open up new markets.


Totally agree with you. Replace one of the morning flights with 77H to SYD and use that A333 for CBR service is the way to go.

rufflesinc Jan 18, 17 10:10 am


Originally Posted by kamchatsky (Post 27768550)
Given the growth of China market there is definitely a huge opportunity to bring F to SYD, especially with all those m/billionaires from China buying up big in SYD over last 10 years. With CX and KA serving a lot of destinations in China, there is certainly a market for it now than before, even with CZ/MU/CA etc expanding.

By my count there are 14 mainland china cities served n/s from SYD. Why would they connect in HKG over a n/s?

sscywong Jan 18, 17 10:29 am


Originally Posted by kamchatsky (Post 27768550)
I think a lot of us here (myself included) want to see CX bringing F to SYD. All CX needs is 1 frame with F to SYD for daily rotation, rather than having 2 or more frames to Europe and North America.

SQ has multiple Suites and F flights to SYD (and MEL) daily, and the flights are like 7.5-8 hours long at most. So with SYD-HKG being 9 hours, surely the flight is not too short for F.

SYD already has QF F lounge which is one of the best F lounge around, so lounge for CX F passengers is not an issue.

Given the growth of China market there is definitely a huge opportunity to bring F to SYD, especially with all those m/billionaires from China buying up big in SYD over last 10 years. With CX and KA serving a lot of destinations in China, there is certainly a market for it now than before, even with CZ/MU/CA etc expanding.

I do think the market is there for CX to introduce it, but they are not yet confident enough to bring it back. In many ways that's why I love SQ more than CX. They serve Suites/Fs to SYD/MEL with shorter flight times, and dare to introduce SIN-CBR-WLG flights to open up new markets.

Problem is not just with the metal....

Currently CX fly 33K and 77G to SYD... So it's 0/40/32/268 or 0/39/21/191... But if CX use 77H to fly, it will becomes 6/53/34/182

Given the loading in Y is still high with SYD, from revenue management perspective it may not be wise for CX to use 77H as F, J and PEY may all end up 50%+ filled with op-up passengers

Ausriver Jan 18, 17 4:37 pm


Originally Posted by sscywong (Post 27781513)
Problem is not just with the metal....

Currently CX fly 33K and 77G to SYD... So it's 0/40/32/268 or 0/39/21/191... But if CX use 77H to fly, it will becomes 6/53/34/182

Given the loading in Y is still high with SYD, from revenue management perspective it may not be wise for CX to use 77H as F, J and PEY may all end up 50%+ filled with op-up passengers

So I guess the best move will be a A380 serving SYD :D:D:D , all the problems solved.

Both CZ & QF is using A380 to serve SYD-CAN/HKG at the moment on a daily basis, although peak season only.

hiima Jan 18, 17 4:45 pm


Originally Posted by Ausriver (Post 27783698)
So I guess the best move will be a A380 serving SYD :D:D:D , all the problems solved.

Both CZ & QF is using A380 to serve SYD-CAN/HKG at the moment on a daily basis, although peak season only.

But... CX doesn't have any A380s...

QRC3288 Jan 18, 17 7:17 pm


Originally Posted by kamchatsky (Post 27768550)
I think a lot of us here (myself included) want to see CX bringing F to SYD. All CX needs is 1 frame with F to SYD for daily rotation, rather than having 2 or more frames to Europe and North America.

SQ has multiple Suites and F flights to SYD (and MEL) daily, and the flights are like 7.5-8 hours long at most. So with SYD-HKG being 9 hours, surely the flight is not too short for F.

SYD already has QF F lounge which is one of the best F lounge around, so lounge for CX F passengers is not an issue.

Let me just put some #s out there so you can see why I think this is unrealistic.

Emirates F Class: Sydney to London round-trip.
Price: $12,000 AUD, aka <$10,000 USD
...this is the price I've frequently paid for CX Business Class between HKG and JFK! And I'm only going 2 long sectors, not 4!

Singapore Airlines F Class: Melbourne to Beijing round-trip.
Price: $7,300 AUD, aka $5,200 USD
....jaw drops at this price. I have a relative who paid around $3,000 USD for a CX Premium Economy ticket LAX-HKG in November last year.

You can go through this exercise with virtually every Australian city to Europe and many in Asia.

I don't think folks in Australia realize just how good they have it with the utter abundance of premium seats at rock-bottom prices. I understand folks want it, totally understand that. Of course, everyone wants the best stuff, and ideally at the cheapest price! But personally I'd bet against this happening. F seats are akin to a high-end hotel - the question isn't demand. Of course everyone wants the Four Seasons just like they want F! Four Seasons - and F - could go out 100% full every time if prices were $100 a ticket, or $50 a night. The question is demand at what price? Not everyone is willing to pay the price where it makes economic sense for the hotel. And in a global world, for CX that means seeing where they can make more money with the same frames. Is there consistent demand out of Sydney for SYD-LHR traffic at $20k+ USD/round-trip? I highly, highly doubt it, especially when EK F is 1/2 the cost. But $20k USD is the opportunity cost of the seats on that plane.

I've seen some of SQ's yield data ex-Australia. The yields are atrocious. While I haven't seen CX's actual number, I asked an analyst I respect what he thought CX was yielding in F cabins to premium F markets in North America like JFK and LAX. I respect his #s. He figures SQ is lucky if they're yielding ex-Australia about 1/2 to 1/3 of whatever CX is to North America. He thought 1/2 was very generous, and it was probably closer to the bottom of the range. A third!

SQ is in a fight for its life against ME carriers who have flooded the Australia market with premium capacity, and are picking off SQ's bread and butter connecting pax to Europe from Oz. CX is blessed geographically compared to SQ, because CX can serve most cities in North America with ease. As a result, despite everyone thinking CX and SQ are natural competitors, the truth is CX is much, much better off with China on its door and North America within realistic striking distance (unlike SQ, who has 16-18 hour flying times to most every city in the US, and needs special equipment or reduced capacity to achieve it). As a result, CX doesn't need to jump in the "let's kill our premium yields to survive" game playing out between Australia and Europe. This is the dynamic at play giving everyone in Australia these killer F prices. Every time I look at F prices ex-Australia I am jealous!

At a minimum, it will be a learning experience for us all to see what CX does. My bet is on it not happening, but let's see. I've been wrong many times before.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:06 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.