Originally Posted by sxc

Originally Posted by Transpacificflyer

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.

Originally Posted by travelinmanS

I usually wear a scarf indoors in the winter because of the poor heating in buildings in Shanghai. It's not pretentious, it's warming.

CX's big issue is they are a high cost airline in a high cost city that is slowly but surely declining in importance globally. Direct flight from EU/USA to many cities in China and increasingly better service on Chinese airlines are what is really going to do in CX, not LCC's. It is very difficult to design a proper strategy to help them rebound and I'm sure there are many smart minds at work on this at the moment. Sometimes the winds of change just don't blow in your favor and I think that is the case now for CX and others in the region like SQ.

HKG is also suffering from being an airport that is now totally overcrowded and increasingly suffering delays just like on the mainland. It used to be a pleasant airport to transit through but one to many bus rides to the 500 gates after wading through the masses buying duty free has me taking nonstop flights to most of my destinations from PVG now. Terminal 2 at PVG isn't bad and you can get away from the crowds. I'm sure once the new terminals open up it will be an even nicer airport if the new terminal at SHA is any indication. They aren't as nice as an uncrowded HKG but that rarely happens anymore.

I like CX and used to try and fly it to the States, EU and OZ whenever I had a chance but I don't think I'm the only one now just going for the convenience of the nonstops from the mainland. This has to be hurting their business. And, yes the food and drinks on MU and CA are poor but the food on CX has been a constant complaint on this forum for years now so I don't think there is that much difference.

Originally Posted by percysmith

Northern transit is just an abberration . On behalf of those who live here, I hope CX is deterred from being able to chase that traffic, and focus on O&D or allow other airlines to do so.

Originally Posted by percysmith

Northern transit is just an abberration . On behalf of those who live here, I hope CX is deterred from being able to chase that traffic, and focus on O&D or allow other airlines to do so.

Originally Posted by percysmith

Northern transit is just an abberration . On behalf of those who live here, I hope CX is deterred from being able to chase that traffic, and focus on O&D or allow other airlines to do so.

Originally Posted by Aus106080

If cx is focus on O&D only, maybe half of the longhaul destinations can be suspended
Other east asian carriers like BR, CI, SQ, KE are not focus on O&D only.

Originally Posted by brunos

If CX is to focus on O&D, they might as well cut most of their longhaul flights.
Hong Kong is a tiny market.

Originally Posted by percysmith

Originally Posted by G-CIVC

I used to feel like that as well, but eventually gave in to 'if you can't beat them, join them', ex-China prices are just leagues better than other alternative outports. (Yeah, and HRP + UK passport issue is not a problem after all as it turned out)

Originally Posted by G-CIVC

Well CX is (or is trying to be) the Asian EK, so you gotta need feed from both faraway and nearby. Especially to sustain such a voluminous capacity.