CX New strategy rollout in 2017

Reply

Old Jun 1, 17, 9:30 pm
  #286  
Hyatt Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ORD + HKG
Programs: CX Diamond, AA ExPlat, BAEC Gold, HH Diamond, Hyatt Explorist, Starriott Gold, GE
Posts: 2,716
Originally Posted by 1010101 View Post
Oneworld rules dictate 'Priority Boarding' only. Nothing about boarding with F passengers.

It's only F check in and lounge access that is set out in the rules.
Originally Posted by jagmeets View Post
May be wrong, but I think the rules are more like 'if your frequent flier gets a benefit, equivalent status fliers of other alliance programs get the same benefit'.
That's what I'm aware of as well, so as long as EXPs don't board before Emeralds, then the OW 'rules' are not in jeopardy.
G-CIVC is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 17, 9:27 am
  #287  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 638
Originally Posted by SilverChris View Post
OW rules indicate that Emeralds should be entitled to board along with F pax.
Funny AA didn't get that memo.

Like it or not, there are some compromises you need to accept being a top-tier member of an airline which is in an alliance.
In this case either you're wrong, or AA has been getting away with this OW rule and nobody has done anything about it. Which means, like Pirates of Caribbeans would say, "they're really just guidelines"

If DMs are entitled to board before other OWEs, then it's ridiculous for other airlines to let CX Emeralds have F/group 1 priority boarding.
Which AA does not. 1/3 of my flights are with AA, and it's 95% ALWAYS been AA F first exclusively (with EXP). 5% of the time they do announce OWE with F and EXP can board first together, but 95% of the time it's always been F/EXP first, OWE after.
Cathay Dragon 666 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 17, 9:32 am
  #288  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 638
Originally Posted by G-CIVC View Post
That's what I'm aware of as well, so as long as EXPs don't board before Emeralds, then the OW 'rules' are not in jeopardy.
I am not surprise if OW has some rules but they will loosely enforce it as long as airlines don't get over the top with it. AA has always been their own F/EXP first, OWE second. Granted some cases I do see F first, OWE/EXP second. But usually the gate agent will announce F first, or F/EXP first, and then announce OWE and other "priority" boarding.
Cathay Dragon 666 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 2, 17, 9:49 am
  #289  
sxc
Moderator, Cathay Pacific
Accor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX MPC Silver, BAEC Gold (OWE), Hyatt
Posts: 9,425
This is getting off topic but oneworld benefits just says Emerald gets priority boarding. It doesn't state to the public where that priority should be.
sxc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 17, 5:06 am
  #290  
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: HKG
Programs: CX DM, SQ, BA, TG, Sheba, VN, MPO since 1980
Posts: 1,050
More staff depart

http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/e...edundancy-plan
Marco Polo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 8, 17, 5:12 am
  #291  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: None any more
Posts: 10,707
This isn't "more" as I read it - it's part of the redundancies already announced.
christep is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 17, 4:36 am
  #292  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Programs: FB AF Silver, BA Gold
Posts: 11,081
Originally Posted by christep View Post
This isn't "more" as I read it - it's part of the redundancies already announced.
Indeed, and more are expected to be announced next week.
brunos is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 18, 8:19 pm
  #293  
sxc
Moderator, Cathay Pacific
Accor Contributor Badge
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Programs: CX MPC Silver, BAEC Gold (OWE), Hyatt
Posts: 9,425
This video from Lufthansa is a very good articulation of how an airline canít be all things to all people. They capture the value market with eurowings and the Premium market with Lufthansa.

Qantas has been successful with the same. Cathay is failing at trying to address all markets at once.

Hottub Cowboy and kijhkijh like this.
sxc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 18, 9:17 pm
  #294  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Programs: *A Gold, SkyMiles,
Posts: 2,482
Originally Posted by sxc View Post
This video from Lufthansa is a very good articulation of how an airline can’t be all things to all people. They capture the value market with eurowings and the Premium market with Lufthansa.
Qantas has been successful with the same. Cathay is failing at trying to address all markets at once.

I believe you are being unduly harsh on Cathay and do not appreciate that it now operates in an exceptionally difficult political and economic environment. Cathay has no domestic feeder market to rely on. Lufthansa does. Qantas profit driver has been the expansion of its domestic market.

I get the point that CX isn't price competitive within Asia and I certainly don't fly CX as much as I used because of that. However, there is a reason why *A carrier Air Canada selected CX as its Asian partner, and that is because of the reliability of Hong Kong as a hub, and CX as a carrier. No other quality carrier is as well situated geographically to serve Asia Pacific as is CX . It is a rarity to ever hear anything but praise about Hong Kong airports compared to the rest of the world and especially the mainland. CX aircrews are tops and understand service. The foreign markets it serves all have praise for it too. Any change will detract from that.

People do pick CX because they value service, safety, OTP and meals they can eat. My last flight on Air China PEK-BKK in J was negative experience and that is why I gladly paid 40% to take an extra 2 hours more to route through HKG via Cathay. There are still many people who will pay a bit more in Y and J to avoid the garbage experience of a China Eastern or Air China flight, even cost sensitive customers like me.

Lufthansa will have hit the proverbial brick wall this year in its battle to take on the LCCs. It can't change its pension obligations or salary structure any more than it now has. The only option it would have is to move its LCC operations out of Germany to get around the union and pension rules and that is not going to happen. That's why Lufthansa Group isn't the best example to compare to.

I use the word harsh, because you do not acknowledge the politics that CX must live with. I believe that CX suffers discrimination by the powers that be, because those powers have a vested interest in the profitability of the lower quality and unpleasant mainland carriers. They are in no hurry to help a Hong Kong company. I consider any "investment" stake in CX from the mainland no different than that of a club owner who must give the local mafia Don a share of the profits if he wants to keep
operating.

PS. I can't take a grown man wearing a scarf, while indoors, seriously. It's pretentious, and over the top.

Last edited by Transpacificflyer; Feb 10, 18 at 9:23 pm
Transpacificflyer is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 18, 10:35 pm
  #295  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,131
@Transpacificflyer - Respectfully disagree on some points:

1. CX's geography is different from QF and LH: CX's base is the 7m HK residents, plus the 12m SZ residents who bus over and a significant chunk of the 108m residents of Guangdong province who bus or ferry.

The better analogy is BA/LHR rather than those two airlines.

2. In any case the KA China network is your effective domestic feeder equivalent.

3. I strongly disagree with the assertion that CX is not favoured by the current administration:

- JQHK got denied HK AOC on an austere reading of English shipping law that CX itself wouldn't have qualified had a grandfather clause not been inserted into our Basic Law

- HKExpress (45% owned by HU) got a massive rap over the knuckles for sloppy safety planning around October last year. It deserved criticism, I won't deny that, but certainly the assertion that HKSARG will back Mainland-supported company doesn't seem to be borne out.

4. HKG is slot constrained (again, like LHR). HKExpress, HK Airlines (largest shareholder HU again) and LCCs would love to have more.

I acknowledge this is a two-edged sword for CX - on one hand it profits as a slot hog, but on the other hand it will affect yield covering all those slots and being unable to reduce unprofitable services.

5. So CX's economics mirror those of BA with its LHR emphasis and constraints. I don't see BA splitting of a LCC either, just turning the mainline into a LCC while retaining the capability to price like a FSC while it can (CX also) (our perceptions of CX service obviously differ).

Last edited by percysmith; Feb 10, 18 at 10:40 pm
percysmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 18, 12:53 am
  #296  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: China
Posts: 1,481
China is an odd domestic market, as the govt hasn't allowed LCC to any extent. If you look at any other large domestic market (EU, US, OZ, Japan, India, Indonesia) the LCC have won, or the FSC forced to become defacto LCC. (domestically, JL and NH are LCC, competing against Shinkansen, and usually having to be cheaper than the train) In a more normal world, I would have expected KA to have been the LCC for China, and regional points, and CX the long haul FSC. BA has sort of done this, with BA Europe vs BA Longhaul being very different products.

I think CX is also a bit stuck by use of long haul aircraft in the region. LH doesn't use A350 for FRA-FCO, so with EU airlines there is a clear distinction long/ short haul. To use an extreme example, 275 seats in a B773ER HKG-TWN has got to be horrible economics vs a A321 with 230 seats.
peasant is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 18, 1:14 am
  #297  
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Depends
Posts: 14,131
@peasant no LCC: isn't 3C a LCC?
percysmith is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 18, 1:58 am
  #298  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by sxc;2940346[left
[/left]
Air NZ , American airlines, disagree with you

Remember, LH is barely cannibalizing its own markets with its LCC's , it is taking over competitor markets or filling OTHER gaps

JQ is barely useful in Sydney but QF has used it to target the tourist markets , Asia and NZ not compete with its Sydney hub....


When QF, LH start LCC's from full fledged hub LCC's at Frankfurt /Sydney with numerous destinations and still see revenue growth from those hubs then CX has a case to copy.

Until then there is little point trying to compete with an airline that cannot even turn a profit HX...
Kachjc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 18, 2:00 am
  #299  
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,421
Originally Posted by peasant View Post
China is an odd domestic market, as the govt hasn't allowed LCC to any extent. If you look at any other large domestic market (EU, US, OZ, Japan, India, Indonesia) the LCC have won, or the FSC forced to become defacto LCC. (domestically, JL and NH are LCC, competing against Shinkansen, and usually having to be cheaper than the train) In a more normal world, I would have expected KA to have been the LCC for China, and regional points, and CX the long haul FSC. BA has sort of done this, with BA Europe vs BA Longhaul being very different products.

I think CX is also a bit stuck by use of long haul aircraft in the region. LH doesn't use A350 for FRA-FCO, so with EU airlines there is a clear distinction long/ short haul. To use an extreme example, 275 seats in a B773ER HKG-TWN has got to be horrible economics vs a A321 with 230 seats.
and CX is also a much larger cargo airline than LH or QF in fact probbaly LH and QF combined....
a 275 seat premium heavy 7773-er is making a hell of al ot more revenue than a 230 seat A321 with tickets sold for the same price as a big mac....
Kachjc is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Feb 11, 18, 6:11 pm
  #300  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: China
Posts: 1,481
Originally Posted by Kachjc View Post
and CX is also a much larger cargo airline than LH or QF in fact probbaly LH and QF combined....
a 275 seat premium heavy 7773-er is making a hell of al ot more revenue than a 230 seat A321 with tickets sold for the same price as a big mac....
On HKG-TWN I doubt cargo will make up for the much higher costs of a B773ER. Plus, if competition is selling seats for the price of a big mac, it will impact your prices too. On a 80 minute flight, the value proposition of meals/ IFE is zip to most consumers
peasant is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread