Why Oneworld airlines (BA,QF) focus a lot more of using SIN as the stopping point than HKG?
They should use HKG as the stopping point rather than SIN for better cooperation with CX, like using CX lounges in HKG, massive code sharing with CX for European routes, to add more European destinations like AMS, MXP, DME (flights operated by CX), and to reduce competiton with *A airlines like SQ.

HKG is a great transfer point - granted. And major oneworld presence.

Competition is also important. SIN is another regional business centre on its own. BKK has the tourism traffic itself.

That's why BA SQ focuses on both - so oneworld has the most choice for the customers.

Securing enough rights between UK/Australia and HK can be another issue.

Exactly. Gives BA and QF non-stops from LHR to both SIN and BKK. But while we're at suggestions, why hasn't BA or QF bought the 772-LR for non-stops LHR-SYD?

Because the aircraft can't do LHR-SYD (unless nearly empty).

You sure? A year or two ago, a 772-LR did HKG-LHR nonstop flying eastbound, 22 hours. Granted, it was with the prevailing winds. My understanding is that LHR-SYD would be no sweat, but the return might require a stop. Here's what Boeing has to say. 772-LR London Range Map. This assumes three "standard" Boeing installed auxiliary fuel tanks. Seems to me that there would be enough demand to support this flight on a 772 (but I have no hard data and am just guessing). The aircraft is smaller than the 744s and 773s. Eliminating the stop in HKG, SIN or BKK would save hours. Nonstop, cruising at Boeing's published cruise speed of Mach .84, flying time would be 19:05. Flying through either BKK or SIN, including time on the ground, total elapsed time is approximately 22:20.

There is almost zero cooperation between QF and CX. Indeed they see each other as rivals. Just look at how many code shares they have on each others metal (zero).

QF insiders may like to correct me, but it seems QF overlooked the whole 777 range because they believed they could get the 787 and 380s when originally promised. History may well record that this was a bad decision.

QF and CX still code shared on the route: HKG-FCO (CX293/QF3861), FCO-HKG (CX292/QF3860)
By changing the focus of the stopping point of Kangaroo route to HKG, QF can do more code shares on European section (operated by CX), like HKG-AMS, HKG-FRA, HKG-CDG, HKG-LHR. As well as BA026 and BA028.

I believe that was also a test flight, with no passengers or cargo. And no mention of load. Sure fill up the fuel tanks. It will fly longer without cargo then it will with. It also doesn't take into account the fuel reserve requirements for the flight. No good flying from SYD to London then have no fuel left to wait for a landing slot. Then if they encounter any weather on the route which causes a rerouting, they�ll have to land somewhere for more fuel.
The operational range of aircraft is less than the range stated by the manufacturer. Seat configuration, cargo capacity, required minimum fuel reserves, weather, ETOPS requirements and over flight rights all limit the possible range.
QF/BA can�t do LHR-SYD with a 772LR. They could do LHR-PER. Running SYD/MEL-BKK/HKG/SIN-LHR is much more useful then SYD/MEL-PER-LHR.

Granted, but you can only book QF HKG-FCO as a an add on to something else and not as a stand alone ticket.

Then, how to encourage CX and QF to cooperate like the relationship among QF and BA?

Who cares? What is this fascination with sending everything via Honkers? SIN and BKK are obviously working, QF and BA have traffic rights via HKG, but are choosing not to use them.

People who are paid a lot more than you and I, with access to all of the market research data and financial figures, have decided that routing via BKK and SIN makes more sense economically, at least as far as BA and QF are concerned.

Dave

I agree.
Please do not forget flying to Europe from HKG also incurs overflight charges from Russia which are supposed to be higher than the other routes.
If QF could use HKG rights to operate an intra-Asia network then that could be a goer.

why CX and QF can't do massive codesharing (like the case of CX and AA, for HKG to US routes) for flights from HKG to Australia, as well as those to European cities?

At least for the HKG-AUS part, if CX and QF were to code-share or set up a joint venture, they would be monopolying and I'm sure the HK and Australian government would not approve that. It's not like what CX does with AA, as AA does not serve HKG, so adding AA-codes on CX's trans-Pacific FLTs is not a problem.

As to how far code-shares between CX and QF can go, I suspect adding CX-codes on domestic Australian / NZ (or perhaps trans-Tasman or to other Pacific Islands) FLTs might be the only possibility in the near future.

In fact, I think CX had code-shared on QF's domestic NZ FLTs for a while, maybe in 2001, after QF took over Ansett New Zealand.