srbrenna

I have an Avios booking LHR-HKG-MEL in April. Now that Oz has opened up it looks like the first part is good. The second part is that it is on CX through HK and that is seeming very iffy.

I recall that if the carrier runs the flight you can’t get a reroute even if the rules don’t allow transfers. I’m in J so options for change are limited. I really don’t fancy ex-NRT in Y!

ernestnywang

Currently, not only are transits from most countries banned, but flights from the UK are also banned. Personally, I don't want the ban to continue, but if it does, LHR-HKG will not operate anyway.

srbrenna

I thought that. Will they reroute? It's on a BA ticket so I guess BA will deal with that.

ernestnywang

If it's a BA-125 ticket, you need to discuss with BA.

Cedar Jet

Change your flights. That was the strong advice given to me as well as my reading of the current HKG/CX situation.

srbrenna

Just seen the news today. It’s not looking good…..

Edit. It’s an Avios flight so I might just sit and wait on this booking. I can cancel at short notice. I’ll just make alternative arrangements as well.

NWIFlyer

The interesting thing about this is that I believe CX has re-opened its lounge in LHR T3, at a time when it won't be operating any of its own flights from there - which means it can only be doing so because they know it'll be cash positive for them with payments from other oneworld airlines.

If it's really got to a stage where it needs what must still be a tiny amount of revenue against the weekly loses, then that's pretty desperate.

nanyang

Just for the record, I do not think we can call PR a 'state airline' in the absence of government ownership. As noted in the article, funding upon exit from Ch. 11 was also provided by the shareholders.

PAL Holdings, Inc.
https://phi.com.ph/our-company/

"The Group operates through its major subsidiaries: Philippine Airlines, Inc., the Philippine national flag carrier, and Air Philippines Corporation, a subsidiary under common control that was indirectly acquired through Zuma Holdings Management Corporation in 2017.The Company is a subsidiary of Trustmark Holdings Corporation (Trustmark), a domestic corporation and is part of the Lucio Tan Group of Companies."

eponymous_coward

Sure, let’s use “flag carrier”. Does that change that a) PR’s US routes were shut down some time ago, with no sign of them being returned again, or b) any suggestions that CX, which is NOT a flag carrier in that market, could start and succeed with MNL-USA service are highly improbable fantasy fiction?

Felix Felicis

Huh? A.) PR flies regularly to the U.S. with daily flights MNL to LAX and SFO. 3x a week to JFK, 2x a week to HNL. Even at the height of the pandemic, the frequency dipped, but never cut entirely.
B.) It is not without precedent -- CX flew some domestic PH routes when PR was shut down in the 1990s (while transitioning from gov't owned to private carrier). It was a big deal -- CX flew MNL-Cebu and MNL-Davao. Couldn't find a news article online because this was pre-internet days! Also, Air Asia re-organized their subsidiary into a locally-owned airline (Air Asia Philippines) and obtained rights to serve regional destinations from MNL; hence, it could be done.

Which leaves the question of: is there a local market (both business and tourist) for such an expansion? Growing up in the late 70s/80s we were told that the Philippine market is "tiny and insignificant." But a marketing professor pointed out: even if only 6.6% of the population owned cars and could afford stuff like travel, that's still 6.6million (out of 110million). Which is close to Singapore's and Hong Kong's ENTIRE population. Thus, I shouldn't really be surprised that J class (pre-pandemic) was always at least 90% full, on CX, QR, JL, BR in all my flights out of MNL. Not as "tiny" as I had thought!

cartman7110

It actually wasn't during the transition or the privatization when CX had to take over critical routes. It was during the Asian Financial Crisis when that happened. PAL's privatization started a few years earlier with Lucio Tan (and his infamous "wala na pera" LOL which i believe was said on TV the breakdown between employees and management).

Wikipedia quoted a few articles (NYT and CX's own report) and i did remember seeing this from an Erap commentator: ASIANOW - Asiaweek

PAL did return to the skies and just recently after filing chapter 11, Lucio and co placed his son in law, married to a daughter from the fourth wife who are both pilots, at the helm, deciding not to continue with professional managers who guided the company through the storm that is the pandemic.

I would think so too that the PH market is rather small for CX and that MNL/NAIA has been overused without any masterplan to create a replacement or address expansion. But CX's market is also not "domestic" per se but rather it domestic is China and Southeast Asia. Its a regional airline.

There is a however a working proposal or maybe its already being built that is the Bulacan Airport spearheaded privately by San Miguel Corporation's Ramon Ang, who at one point also bought PAL from Lucio but sold it back to him at cost. Thats a different topic.

That new airport is massive per the plans and can be at par with HKIA. I would definitely love to see CX relocate to that airport or buy PAL off Lucio's hands (which i doubt he will sell as local murmurs indicate that part of the business is peg to Lucio's first family).

History also shows one important thing the PH holds, location. Just like HK, its right in the middle of the action.

Hypothetically, assuming CX does end up flying again out of MNL via flag carrier or even as a fifth freedom rights, the only other issue with MNL is its earthquake, storm, and flooding threats. You do get away from the direct Beijing threat if you bet on MNL, well that's assuming the former dictator's son does not win the May election. But i digress.

The way i see it, CX ain't leaving HK for three reasons: Charter unless again MNL or another country opened it up to them which Lucio will oppose for sure; Air China will block it; and HK government won't allow it. They'd rather cripple it to death than see it flourish elsewhere.

eponymous_coward

I appreciate the corrections. I will leave my counter argument to the post above mine, which is probably better and more informed than what I would say.

ernestnywang

I beg to differ. As you said, CX must have calculated it. Plus, the lounge itself serves as a marketing tool and a way to show commitment that CX will return to LHR. It doesn't hurt CX in any way and helps CX to get more profit. Any business operating rationally would do it, whether in good financial state or not.

cmiller11101

Transit is allowed in Thailand, BKK airport only, and COVID-19 insurance is required as if you were arriving. The transit options are slim to none, so I'm not sure why anyone would find themselves in this situation... but yes it's possible and has been for some time. Again, BKK only.

-Chris

350zrx330

I think the current BKK transit rule is the "sandbox program" only and 1 ticket. it is very limited and no separated tickets allowed for airside transit.