glennaa11

That all makes operational sense. But the idea of leaving IAD at 1:30 AM is probably not especially appealing to many people. But the non-daily issue is probably a bigger issue

QRC3288

I think "it depends". I'm a bit jaded, but I reckon I've done in the neighborhood of 200 Transpacific segments the last decade. When given the option I choose the midnight departure each and every time. The daytime flights are absolutely brutal. Plus I can have a full day of work or personal events, including dinner prior to boarding and sleeping.

To be fair, I am in J or F. But if you are flying premium cabins especially i highly vouch for the midnight departure. When flying time is 15 hours you're going to be crossing a night anyway which is lost on some folks. I far prefer to be tired and in sleep mode when I board; I can often conk out for 10-12 hours on those flights. Absolutely love them and avoid the daytime flights whenever possible. I can't speak for others, but I suspect others in my shoes who fly to/from Asia a lot would agree the late departures aren't as bad as they sound (in fact they're great) to folks who may not fly the route as often.

But yea regArdless, operationally there might be a quarter full plane if lucky flying to/from IAD daytime at normal prices. It would be a bloodbath. Connecting traffic in Asia is the whole game for that flight.

langleyoaker

DOT T-100 data shows that for October 2018 (the latest month for which data is posted on bts.gov) the IAD route averaged 237 pax/flight.

QRC3288

That's actually not as bad as I assumed! Especially in the 2nd month.

Although load factor can be deceptive due to the presence of ID ticket (CX staff) pax. I remember CPH and Dublin at launch being packed to the gills with ID passengers; I was privy to the loading data, CPH was really bad, on many flights 2/3 the J cabin to CPH was going out with ID passengers. I think one flight I saw was virtually all ID. That obviously wasn't sustainable..and unfortunately, the route got canned. Even though if you flew on the route you'd think things were great given the #s of full seats. Every time a new flight launches, staff are excited to visit and bring loved ones, provided there are open seats (which they can see in good detail, better than EF because they can see actual pax #s not just seats bring sold, to evaluate their odds). That dynamic usually goes on for 6 months or longer as staff rotate through the flight and the word gets out whether it's a fun place to visit or not.

The downgauge to A35G was definitely ominous. And the fact the route is the longest in the CX network means the cost structure is higher than any other A350 flight. Hopefully IAD stays. It is really pleasing to see all this CX longhaul growth in the last decade. But I suspect if UA were for some reason to jump in and compete, that might force CX to withdraw.

catalyst2211

Would like to read more on this. As far as I know 77H doesn't have the new IFE screen and WiFi (but 77Hs are in the process of upgrading to 77A). But is there really such a huge difference in terms of comfort, etc?

Am currently booked 77H/77A HKG-JFK and LAX-HKG

QRC3288

Honestly to each their own. I hands down prefer 77A/H, even in J, to A350 any day. The seat is considerably wider. kaka is a forum regular but I also fly quite a bit, putting up at least 20+ segments in 77W and A350 each a year.

I used to prefer A350 J to 77W J short haul because of wifi, but now the 777 is getting wifi about half the fleet is done and its amazing (although not totally rolled out), so I just prefer the 777 in J period now.

cyster2007

Cambo

The A350 is definitely quieter, though I would not rate it the engine noise, though more the overall appliances noise level, the air-conditioning, fans air-ducting, under-floor machinery, etc. The A350 has also a much more composite fuselage, which implies, the materials itself do have more internal damping, then the pure aluminum of the 777. And not to forget, the whole A350 concept is nearly 20 years "younger".

The A350 being less noisy, does have its drawbacks to: The first time I did a LH on an A350-1000, the guy seated behind me, was snoring really loud. Before complaining about that, I checked out his FF status. Since he turned out to be a DM, I skipped complaining .......

The whole seating on a 77W is a little "wider", though I think, the side-ways leg room on an A350 is definitely more than on the 77W. The 77W seat being a little wider comes with the fuselage being a little wider than the A330/A350.

langleyoaker

The T-100 data is for revenue passengers only. This can be confirmed by taking the number of passengers times the mileage distance of the route which matches the revenue passenger miles that CX reported on the T-100.

hl176

Actually contrary to the other posters, I find the 350 seat much more comfortable than the 77W seat in both lounging and sleeping; when the seat is semi-reclined in the lazy-z position, there seat pan actually tilts upwards slightly giving much better lower thigh support. I also find the sleep footwell much wider than those on the 77W and can consistently get as much sleep on the 350 in J (even on daytime flights) as the 77W in F, which is real sleep unlike on the 77W in J, it's more sporadic napping throughout (and these are generally on redeyes).

However, I wouldn't go out of the way to book an outport that's less convenient for me transit-wise just to get the 350 instead of the 777; I wouldn't book EWR if there were other options available on the same day.

Like what others say, I actually prefer late late night departures past 1am as you're already tired and ready to sleep with an early morning arrival in HKG and a full day in the origin city.

glennaa11

looks like IAD has been officially downsized to the A359. My November flight now shows that a/c and when check flights towards the end of schedule it also shows as 359.