May 4, 2015, 8:46 pm
Last edit by: maortega15
This is a thread to discuss rumours / potential new routes for Cathay Pacific to fly to.
Current speculation:
Current speculation:
New route speculation for Cathay
Jun 6, 2018, 2:21 am
#901
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
Am I misreading you? CX has 20 A350-1000s coming, not 4. You are correct that the last 6 A351s with delivery slots in 2020 were changed to A359 variants. Originally it would've been 26.
As for Mexico City, these rumors continue to be pretty silly. The weight, class layouts, bathrooms, etc. all need to be normalized for a true apples to apples comparison. Not to mention both Airbus and Boeing even use different circling time fuel reserves and distance to alternates, among scores of other differences. Conveniently, both airframers often pick loadouts and variable differences when presenting their range #s that exaggerate their own planes' capabilities and paint the competitor in an inferior light. And to make it all even more confusing, I've found Wikipedia and most news articles randomly requote Boeing or Airbus without any clue the comparisons don't add up and have used a lot of different variables underneath the surface. And relating to Mexico City, another blatantly obvious and unmentioned variable is summer temperatures and altitude.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure among many other issues with Mexico City, a huge issue is the return sector. It simply cannot be nonstop on any of the frames mentioned because of the airport altitude, unless it is severely load restricted. Hell i don't even know if that's possible with a load restriction...the airport is at 7k feet! Anyway the point is those numbers on Wiki, from the OEMs, on the blogs etc. are almost always misleading for specific mission profiles.
I really don't see how MEX would launch without having another city included for a fifth freedom type route.
As for Mexico City, these rumors continue to be pretty silly. The weight, class layouts, bathrooms, etc. all need to be normalized for a true apples to apples comparison. Not to mention both Airbus and Boeing even use different circling time fuel reserves and distance to alternates, among scores of other differences. Conveniently, both airframers often pick loadouts and variable differences when presenting their range #s that exaggerate their own planes' capabilities and paint the competitor in an inferior light. And to make it all even more confusing, I've found Wikipedia and most news articles randomly requote Boeing or Airbus without any clue the comparisons don't add up and have used a lot of different variables underneath the surface. And relating to Mexico City, another blatantly obvious and unmentioned variable is summer temperatures and altitude.
Anyway, I'm pretty sure among many other issues with Mexico City, a huge issue is the return sector. It simply cannot be nonstop on any of the frames mentioned because of the airport altitude, unless it is severely load restricted. Hell i don't even know if that's possible with a load restriction...the airport is at 7k feet! Anyway the point is those numbers on Wiki, from the OEMs, on the blogs etc. are almost always misleading for specific mission profiles.
I really don't see how MEX would launch without having another city included for a fifth freedom type route.
CX management was literally seen in Mexico meeting MEX officials....
not to mention the CEO mentioned both MEX and Miami in the interview.
MEX and MIA have been on CX's radar for years.... but they are waiting for the right aircraft.
Jun 6, 2018, 4:56 am
#902
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,797
As @QRC3288 said its not whether the aircraft can do the distance, both can, its whether they can do it and still make money. This is the reason the 77W has been so successful, yes it can fly long range but it can do it with a heavy load.
Jun 6, 2018, 6:07 am
#903
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
speaking of fleet CX literally has the most simplified fleet
A330, A350 and 777
largest operator of a330 and 3rd largest 777 operator ( largest in Asia)
I could easily see it moving to just 2 fleet types, especially if CX uses A350R to replace the regional fleet ( or a 777-9 regional version)
A330, A350 and 777
largest operator of a330 and 3rd largest 777 operator ( largest in Asia)
I could easily see it moving to just 2 fleet types, especially if CX uses A350R to replace the regional fleet ( or a 777-9 regional version)
Jun 6, 2018, 7:12 am
#904
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: CX, UA, Shangri-La, Hyatt, Starwood
Posts: 7,708
speaking of fleet CX literally has the most simplified fleet
A330, A350 and 777
largest operator of a330 and 3rd largest 777 operator ( largest in Asia)
I could easily see it moving to just 2 fleet types, especially if CX uses A350R to replace the regional fleet ( or a 777-9 regional version)
A330, A350 and 777
largest operator of a330 and 3rd largest 777 operator ( largest in Asia)
I could easily see it moving to just 2 fleet types, especially if CX uses A350R to replace the regional fleet ( or a 777-9 regional version)
Jun 6, 2018, 7:59 am
#905
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
Simplified fleet, yes. But not quite as you say. KA operates the A320 family. CX operates 747s. Air Hong Kong, which is now majority owned by CX operates B747s and A300s. These are all CX for all intents and purposes, you're just not allowed to buy a ticket in the last 3 (that is, unless you box yourself up...).
Jun 6, 2018, 8:13 am
#906
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: BOS/UTH
Programs: AA LT PLT; QR GLD; Bonvoy LT TIT
Posts: 12,755
As @QRC3288 said its not whether the aircraft can do the distance, both can, its whether they can do it and still make money.
And that includes both 744s and 748s. The 74x series is, by far, my all time favorite. I'm thinking about booking a flight on LH just to experience the 748. My last 74x flight was LHR-JNB a few years ago.
Jun 7, 2018, 2:05 am
#907
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: Cathay Lifetime Diamond
Posts: 691
Given that the their exists presently no equipment available to the major Asian players that can operate with full freight and pax non- stop to Chile Brazil, or Argentina the race is to be first operator who can run a profitable flight to these destinations.
There are several reasons why Cathay needs to be that operator.
Good availability of freight
Feed for the their Asian network.
Best connections to China
Kudos ………..to name a few.
It may be that with so many compelling reasons one of the majors will decide (as Cathay did for several years successfully to Toronto) to fly direct but with a technical stop (as was Anchorage – same plane 1 hour stop -no immigration) until equipment is available for non-stop. It is a long shot but feasible and possible in 22/23 hours with a 1 hour technical stop.
It happens that NAN is more or less in a straight line from HKG to all three of the countries mentioned above and Cathay already has a (strengthening) relationship with Fiji Airways.
Using an A350 HKG-NAN takes +/- 9.30 hours and NAN to say SCL would be +/- 12 hours but using this route Cathay could reach all 3 countries.
NAN would be a better stop than say Auckland as it is unlikely I feel that CX would be granted the necessary rights out of AKL. Cathay has been looking at NAN for many years but lack of freight and front end pax is why the have never added it to the network and code share on the route with Fiji Airways.
Unlikely to happen but an interesting scenario !
There are several reasons why Cathay needs to be that operator.
Good availability of freight
Feed for the their Asian network.
Best connections to China
Kudos ………..to name a few.
It may be that with so many compelling reasons one of the majors will decide (as Cathay did for several years successfully to Toronto) to fly direct but with a technical stop (as was Anchorage – same plane 1 hour stop -no immigration) until equipment is available for non-stop. It is a long shot but feasible and possible in 22/23 hours with a 1 hour technical stop.
It happens that NAN is more or less in a straight line from HKG to all three of the countries mentioned above and Cathay already has a (strengthening) relationship with Fiji Airways.
Using an A350 HKG-NAN takes +/- 9.30 hours and NAN to say SCL would be +/- 12 hours but using this route Cathay could reach all 3 countries.
NAN would be a better stop than say Auckland as it is unlikely I feel that CX would be granted the necessary rights out of AKL. Cathay has been looking at NAN for many years but lack of freight and front end pax is why the have never added it to the network and code share on the route with Fiji Airways.
Unlikely to happen but an interesting scenario !
Jun 7, 2018, 9:16 am
#908
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2006
Location: DTW, but drive to/from YYZ/ORD
Programs: Chase Ultimate Rewards 2MM, Diner Club points
Posts: 31,911
Instead of flying to JFK (who is still flying the one-stop?), perhaps CX could use YVR to fly to any of those SA destinations as well as MEX
Jun 7, 2018, 11:25 am
#909
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 291
Giving up cash cow for a uncertain return may not be a good decision (especially CX is still loss making)
Jun 7, 2018, 2:32 pm
#910
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: New York
Programs: AA, CX, Hyatt, Marriott
Posts: 1,484
Really? Flew YVR - JFK couple times and it is half empty. Talked to FA on EWR/JFK - HKG route and they also confirmed the load is light. I get that the fare for this route is quite high, but not sure if that combined with light load makes it cash cow.
Jun 11, 2018, 1:59 am
#912
Join Date: Nov 2012
Programs: SPG Platinum
Posts: 1,689
I think they make a fair bit off cargo to those places.
Jun 14, 2018, 6:52 pm
#914
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: JFK/EWR/SFO/LAX/YYZ <-> HKG, PEK, CKG
Programs: CX, Hyatt
Posts: 155
Believe YVR-JFK is served by YVR crew only, but EWR-HKG FA is HK based and JFK-HKG FA is either HK based (841, 831 in most cases) or mixed crew of HK+NY (845), so the FA you spoke with has never worked on YVR-JFK and can't confirm. However I would bet the load is generally light as well - have only flown that a couple of times.
Jun 14, 2018, 7:26 pm
#915
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: UA Gold Marriott Gold AA Gold Choice Gold Wyndham PLAT IHG PLAT Avis President's Club Amtrak Select
Posts: 2,263
As Delta will drop SEA-HKG, and out of the HKG market altogether, this fall, I'd be surprised if this doesn't give route planning at CX another hard look at SEA. Delta's problem was it had no help at the HKG end of the flight, little name recognition at HKG, and improper equipment for SEA-HKG, i.e. too long for the A330-200 in the winter time and too big for the 777-200ER. Its stunning that after Delta finally placed the 777-200ER full time a few months ago after a long time to build up load factor just to discontinue it this fall and allow HKG to be served on KE through ICN. CX should jump in on this now with the A350-900, as its the perfect size for a route such as SEA-HKG. Except a evening departure from HKG to SEA and a midnight departure from SEA as CX will be able to fly SEA-HKG-SE Asia and vice versa, something Delta could not do. Its remarkable Delta hasn't been able to even establish a code-sharing relationship with HX. Its so strange that here Delta is still flying NRT-SIN but not flying their metal to HKG. 1
