China Airlines (CI) 2019 Lunar New Year Pilot Strike - What is going on?
Feb 19, 2019, 5:17 am
#76
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
Since reading the article it mentioned their considering cutting these routes while looking over their route portfolio.
If they're going to cut something it might happen entering summer since in the case of ONT, they're pretty much booked all the way to Mid to late April unless they just pull the plug in the coming days, and magically have CI 5/6 operational at LAX.
I've been thinking it over, if in the end ONT gets cut could it be due to A359 being parked for several hours (7/8hrs) before it's outbound flight to TPE? Since those 7/8hrs the A359 could be used elsewhere. Seeing that ONT has healthy inbound and outbound loads, and like Coollfish mentioned, ONT could sustain itself now. I think to fully utilize the A359, if ONT survives this cut, it will be doing the final tweak to the schedule with moving the daytime arrival to nights to maximize it's profits. Though will CI do this instead of cutting it to optimize its portfolio who knows.
If they're going to cut something it might happen entering summer since in the case of ONT, they're pretty much booked all the way to Mid to late April unless they just pull the plug in the coming days, and magically have CI 5/6 operational at LAX.
I've been thinking it over, if in the end ONT gets cut could it be due to A359 being parked for several hours (7/8hrs) before it's outbound flight to TPE? Since those 7/8hrs the A359 could be used elsewhere. Seeing that ONT has healthy inbound and outbound loads, and like Coollfish mentioned, ONT could sustain itself now. I think to fully utilize the A359, if ONT survives this cut, it will be doing the final tweak to the schedule with moving the daytime arrival to nights to maximize it's profits. Though will CI do this instead of cutting it to optimize its portfolio who knows.
Last edited by 26volt; Feb 19, 2019 at 6:33 am
Feb 19, 2019, 7:08 am
#77
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
To behonest CI will work out anyway possible to keep all the current routes if possible. In the end I only see minor adjustments being made like the plane flying from HKG to SUB instead of SIN-SUB.
AKL-BNE I think still has a chance of surviving as surely the prices offered to fly business and PE to TPE from AKL willl be much much higher than what CI can offer. Still think cancelling LGW would be crazy as this route can definitely grow year by year and to be honest most UK people don't know the carrier well.
We will really need to see management make some comments about future/current routes and the remaining A350 options. Interesting to note that the A350 may get a Neo'd upgraded engine by 2025 which could still be a good decision for CI to order 6-12 more planes with the more efficient engines as well as improvements the A350 gets along the way.
AKL-BNE I think still has a chance of surviving as surely the prices offered to fly business and PE to TPE from AKL willl be much much higher than what CI can offer. Still think cancelling LGW would be crazy as this route can definitely grow year by year and to be honest most UK people don't know the carrier well.
We will really need to see management make some comments about future/current routes and the remaining A350 options. Interesting to note that the A350 may get a Neo'd upgraded engine by 2025 which could still be a good decision for CI to order 6-12 more planes with the more efficient engines as well as improvements the A350 gets along the way.
Feb 19, 2019, 7:45 am
#78
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
To behonest CI will work out anyway possible to keep all the current routes if possible. In the end I only see minor adjustments
We will really need to see management make some comments about future/current routes and the remaining A350 options. Interesting to note that the A350 may get a Neo'd upgraded engine by 2025 which could still be a good decision for CI to order 6-12 more planes with the more efficient engines as well as improvements the A350 gets along the way.
We will really need to see management make some comments about future/current routes and the remaining A350 options. Interesting to note that the A350 may get a Neo'd upgraded engine by 2025 which could still be a good decision for CI to order 6-12 more planes with the more efficient engines as well as improvements the A350 gets along the way.
Regarding management, you have point. They need to comment on the routes.
For ONT, OIAA officially opened their escape lounge three weeks ago (Jan 30), and the Vice President of CI for the Americas was there, and mentioned how many passengers had flown to ONT (145,000). So, why would the Vice President be there if they were thinking the route was not viable. Unless he was there to tell OIAA, 'hey if something happens( since the rumors of the strike were already looming), were dropping you'.
Feb 19, 2019, 10:08 am
#79
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: SFO
Programs: BR Diamond, Dynasty Flyer Paragon, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 1,926
I think out of those mentioned the ones likely would be cut or changed is
1. Surabaya
2. Auckland
Surabaya being a tag flight via Singapore creates a problem where now TPE-SIN-SUB will be very close to exceeding 8 hours of pilot schedule, so 3 pilots will be needed if the pilots complain. I would expect this route to be axed or moved to another combination, such as TPE-SUB 3 weekly, or TPE-HKG-SUB 7 weekly (which will cut down the flight time to almost 7 hours).
Auckland was doing okay but with NZ coming in to competition, I would expect CI to drop this tag route sooner or later. In that case, TPE-BNE will probably need to down gauge to a 359 if it remains daily. I am skeptical about whether CI wants to start a direct flight to compete with NZ, it just doesn't make sense.
As for Ontario, unless CI can get the 6/5 afternoon slot back, I don't see a need to cut this flight. Even with CI 6/5 back on schedule, I think Ontario can sustain itself now, just not very profitable (as in the plane may be used elsewhere for more profits) plus not much cargo compare to LAX. However, if we are talking about whether Ontario was profitable the past year, it wasn't with the daytime departure.
I am unsure why London or Ontario is on the list if New York is not. New York has not made money for majority of it's existence. London is also low yield but if New York needs to exist, then London should too. Plus if you want to do the Kangaroo route and mix it with BNE, SYD and MEL, then you need London as one of the destinations.
If London is cut then I guess Melbourne will be cut as well. If that comes then we can expect Sydney going back to 7 weekly operation.
Delhi is never a profitable destination and I don't see CI being very active advertising this route to connect to North America like it use to do for Vancouver or San Francisco, so I do question if CI really wants to keep this route. It use to be 5 weekly, and has been down-gauged to as low as 2 weekly, with 3 weekly being the current schedule. I think this flight is in question cause it's very close to 8 hours mark on one leg.
1. Surabaya
2. Auckland
Surabaya being a tag flight via Singapore creates a problem where now TPE-SIN-SUB will be very close to exceeding 8 hours of pilot schedule, so 3 pilots will be needed if the pilots complain. I would expect this route to be axed or moved to another combination, such as TPE-SUB 3 weekly, or TPE-HKG-SUB 7 weekly (which will cut down the flight time to almost 7 hours).
Auckland was doing okay but with NZ coming in to competition, I would expect CI to drop this tag route sooner or later. In that case, TPE-BNE will probably need to down gauge to a 359 if it remains daily. I am skeptical about whether CI wants to start a direct flight to compete with NZ, it just doesn't make sense.
As for Ontario, unless CI can get the 6/5 afternoon slot back, I don't see a need to cut this flight. Even with CI 6/5 back on schedule, I think Ontario can sustain itself now, just not very profitable (as in the plane may be used elsewhere for more profits) plus not much cargo compare to LAX. However, if we are talking about whether Ontario was profitable the past year, it wasn't with the daytime departure.
I am unsure why London or Ontario is on the list if New York is not. New York has not made money for majority of it's existence. London is also low yield but if New York needs to exist, then London should too. Plus if you want to do the Kangaroo route and mix it with BNE, SYD and MEL, then you need London as one of the destinations.
If London is cut then I guess Melbourne will be cut as well. If that comes then we can expect Sydney going back to 7 weekly operation.
Delhi is never a profitable destination and I don't see CI being very active advertising this route to connect to North America like it use to do for Vancouver or San Francisco, so I do question if CI really wants to keep this route. It use to be 5 weekly, and has been down-gauged to as low as 2 weekly, with 3 weekly being the current schedule. I think this flight is in question cause it's very close to 8 hours mark on one leg.
Feb 19, 2019, 3:37 pm
#80
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
I think out of those mentioned the ones likely would be cut or changed is
1. Surabaya
2. Auckland
Surabaya being a tag flight via Singapore creates a problem where now TPE-SIN-SUB will be very close to exceeding 8 hours of pilot schedule, so 3 pilots will be needed if the pilots complain. I would expect this route to be axed or moved to another combination, such as TPE-SUB 3 weekly, or TPE-HKG-SUB 7 weekly (which will cut down the flight time to almost 7 hours).
Auckland was doing okay but with NZ coming in to competition, I would expect CI to drop this tag route sooner or later. In that case, TPE-BNE will probably need to down gauge to a 359 if it remains daily. I am skeptical about whether CI wants to start a direct flight to compete with NZ, it just doesn't make sense.
As for Ontario, unless CI can get the 6/5 afternoon slot back, I don't see a need to cut this flight. Even with CI 6/5 back on schedule, I think Ontario can sustain itself now, just not very profitable (as in the plane may be used elsewhere for more profits) plus not much cargo compare to LAX. However, if we are talking about whether Ontario was profitable the past year, it wasn't with the daytime departure.
I am unsure why London or Ontario is on the list if New York is not. New York has not made money for majority of it's existence. London is also low yield but if New York needs to exist, then London should too. Plus if you want to do the Kangaroo route and mix it with BNE, SYD and MEL, then you need London as one of the destinations.
If London is cut then I guess Melbourne will be cut as well. If that comes then we can expect Sydney going back to 7 weekly operation.
Delhi is never a profitable destination and I don't see CI being very active advertising this route to connect to North America like it use to do for Vancouver or San Francisco, so I do question if CI really wants to keep this route. It use to be 5 weekly, and has been down-gauged to as low as 2 weekly, with 3 weekly being the current schedule. I think this flight is in question cause it's very close to 8 hours mark on one leg.
1. Surabaya
2. Auckland
Surabaya being a tag flight via Singapore creates a problem where now TPE-SIN-SUB will be very close to exceeding 8 hours of pilot schedule, so 3 pilots will be needed if the pilots complain. I would expect this route to be axed or moved to another combination, such as TPE-SUB 3 weekly, or TPE-HKG-SUB 7 weekly (which will cut down the flight time to almost 7 hours).
Auckland was doing okay but with NZ coming in to competition, I would expect CI to drop this tag route sooner or later. In that case, TPE-BNE will probably need to down gauge to a 359 if it remains daily. I am skeptical about whether CI wants to start a direct flight to compete with NZ, it just doesn't make sense.
As for Ontario, unless CI can get the 6/5 afternoon slot back, I don't see a need to cut this flight. Even with CI 6/5 back on schedule, I think Ontario can sustain itself now, just not very profitable (as in the plane may be used elsewhere for more profits) plus not much cargo compare to LAX. However, if we are talking about whether Ontario was profitable the past year, it wasn't with the daytime departure.
I am unsure why London or Ontario is on the list if New York is not. New York has not made money for majority of it's existence. London is also low yield but if New York needs to exist, then London should too. Plus if you want to do the Kangaroo route and mix it with BNE, SYD and MEL, then you need London as one of the destinations.
If London is cut then I guess Melbourne will be cut as well. If that comes then we can expect Sydney going back to 7 weekly operation.
Delhi is never a profitable destination and I don't see CI being very active advertising this route to connect to North America like it use to do for Vancouver or San Francisco, so I do question if CI really wants to keep this route. It use to be 5 weekly, and has been down-gauged to as low as 2 weekly, with 3 weekly being the current schedule. I think this flight is in question cause it's very close to 8 hours mark on one leg.
1. Surabaya via Singapore - Technical stop
2. Delhi - 2hr layover
3. London 6hr layover.
4. Ontario 10hr layover
5. Brisbane-Auckland - Technical Stop, Melbourne - 11hr layover.
In the end, it might depend loads, yields, and how long the layover are in the routes on which stay and go.
I agree with Coolfish that possibly Surabaya and Delhi goes.
I'd add Brisbane-Auckland since the loads are lackluster for the last five months ( see monthly CAA).
Though, regarding Melbourne, London and ONT....
Melbourne has done its best to keep its loads above 80%. Though, what's hurting them is using the 77W and having a long layover before going back to TPE. I'd trim the layover from 11hrs to 2/3hrs and use A359 instead.
London Gatwick is a new route...here are the LF Jul 89.5% Aug 89.8%, Sept 85%, OCT 75.4%, NOV 78%, DEC 83%, there nice to good numbers. Though, yields or that 6hr layover could be an issue post strike agreement.
ONT well we've all discussed it, after the switch to nights out bounds with the A359 have stayed consistent above 80%, though yields or, that 10 hour layover, or mixture of both is what's hurting this route post strike agreement.
With these routes, it will depend if they're doing well loads and yields wise, they just need to tweak their schedules to cut down the layover times if that is the problem.
Regarding JFK and Coolfish mentioning being an unprofitable route.
I went ahead and checked JFK's loads seeing they're mixed with BR and CI, and hover around 28,000 - 30,000. Knowing BR is the popular of the two, and CI only flies to JFK four days a week, I believe Coolfish's is right with JFK being in this list possible flights needing to be withdrawn.
I went to CI website to check the JFK's timetable and came across something CI hasn't announced yet, correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems CI is doing a code-share with Jet Blue since it seems the days the direct flight to JFK is not available, they're routing people through ONT instead of LAX or SFO which I find interesting. At the moment, there's the TPE-JFK via 10hr layover at ONT, and JFK - TPE via ONT with (1hr10 layover).
What I could see happening is ONT survives this, it gets its arrival time moved to nights to shorten the layover for its pilots and this code share, and perhaps the JFK route gets the axe. Though, this just speculation in my part.
Last edited by 26volt; Feb 19, 2019 at 5:32 pm
Feb 19, 2019, 6:09 pm
#81
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: CAN, LAX, TPE
Programs: AA, AS, CI, DL, UA
Posts: 2,898
I just checked the destinations mentioned that possibly CI might cut.
1. Surabaya via Singapore - Technical stop
2. Delhi - 2hr layover
3. London 6hr layover.
4. Ontario 10hr layover
5. Brisbane-Auckland - Technical Stop, Melbourne - 11hr layover.
In the end, it might depend loads, yields, and how long the layover are in the routes on which stay and go.
I agree with Coolfish that possibly Surabaya and Delhi goes.
I'd add Brisbane-Auckland since the loads are lackluster for the last five months ( see monthly CAA).
Though, regarding Melbourne, London and ONT....
Melbourne has done its best to keep its loads above 80%. Though, what's hurting them is using the 77W and having a long layover before going back to TPE. I'd trim the layover from 11hrs to 2/3hrs and use A359 instead.
London Gatwick is a new route...here are the LF Jul 89.5% Aug 89.8%, Sept 85%, OCT 75.4%, NOV 78%, DEC 83%, there nice to good numbers. Though, yields or that 6hr layover could be an issue post strike agreement.
ONT well we've all discussed it, after the switch to nights out bounds with the A359 have stayed consistent above 80%, though yields or, that 10 hour layover, or mixture of both is what's hurting this route post strike agreement.
With these routes, it will depend if they're doing well loads and yields wise, they just need to tweak their schedules to cut down the layover times if that is the problem.
Regarding JFK and Coolfish mentioning being an unprofitable route.
I went ahead and checked JFK's loads seeing they're mixed with BR and CI, and hover around 28,000 - 30,000. Knowing BR is the popular of the two, and CI only flies to JFK four days a week, I believe Coolfish's is right with JFK being in this list possible flights needing to be withdrawn.
I went to CI website to check the JFK's timetable and came across something CI hasn't announced yet, correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems CI is doing a code-share with Jet Blue since it seems the days the direct flight to JFK is not available, they're routing people through ONT instead of LAX or SFO which I find interesting. At the moment, there's the TPE-JFK via 10hr layover at ONT, and JFK - TPE via ONT with (1hr10 layover).
What I could see happening is ONT survives this, it gets its arrival time moved to nights to shorten the layover for its pilots and this code share, and perhaps the JFK route gets the axe. Though, this just speculation in my part.
1. Surabaya via Singapore - Technical stop
2. Delhi - 2hr layover
3. London 6hr layover.
4. Ontario 10hr layover
5. Brisbane-Auckland - Technical Stop, Melbourne - 11hr layover.
In the end, it might depend loads, yields, and how long the layover are in the routes on which stay and go.
I agree with Coolfish that possibly Surabaya and Delhi goes.
I'd add Brisbane-Auckland since the loads are lackluster for the last five months ( see monthly CAA).
Though, regarding Melbourne, London and ONT....
Melbourne has done its best to keep its loads above 80%. Though, what's hurting them is using the 77W and having a long layover before going back to TPE. I'd trim the layover from 11hrs to 2/3hrs and use A359 instead.
London Gatwick is a new route...here are the LF Jul 89.5% Aug 89.8%, Sept 85%, OCT 75.4%, NOV 78%, DEC 83%, there nice to good numbers. Though, yields or that 6hr layover could be an issue post strike agreement.
ONT well we've all discussed it, after the switch to nights out bounds with the A359 have stayed consistent above 80%, though yields or, that 10 hour layover, or mixture of both is what's hurting this route post strike agreement.
With these routes, it will depend if they're doing well loads and yields wise, they just need to tweak their schedules to cut down the layover times if that is the problem.
Regarding JFK and Coolfish mentioning being an unprofitable route.
I went ahead and checked JFK's loads seeing they're mixed with BR and CI, and hover around 28,000 - 30,000. Knowing BR is the popular of the two, and CI only flies to JFK four days a week, I believe Coolfish's is right with JFK being in this list possible flights needing to be withdrawn.
I went to CI website to check the JFK's timetable and came across something CI hasn't announced yet, correct me if I'm wrong.
It seems CI is doing a code-share with Jet Blue since it seems the days the direct flight to JFK is not available, they're routing people through ONT instead of LAX or SFO which I find interesting. At the moment, there's the TPE-JFK via 10hr layover at ONT, and JFK - TPE via ONT with (1hr10 layover).
What I could see happening is ONT survives this, it gets its arrival time moved to nights to shorten the layover for its pilots and this code share, and perhaps the JFK route gets the axe. Though, this just speculation in my part.
- Delhi is just a bit too far from Taipei to use 738, else I think CI will do okay with it there.
Surabaya's loads is quite bad and is there to serve the Taiwanese business travelers (especially after EVA axes the direct flight), which frankly I think a direct flight might be better than having a stop in Singapore. I am unsure if tagging via HKG is better then direct, but there is only 1 CX flight between HKG-SUB, it has to be better than going via SIN (both in terms of pricing and flight duration). Put a 738 here should be okay.
New York being unprofitable is directly from CI and has been on the news for numerous years. The flight just wasn't cancelled (due to either government intervention or a flight needed to serve the east coast Taiwanese). I would think London should be in this situation as well, so if New York isn't going away, I fail to see why London needs to.
All the Oceania flights need to have late night departure to gain more passengers on flight, so I would say if CI wants to make them all work, might just reduce Brisbane back to 4 weekly during off peak season and extend Melbourne flight to Auckland so the plane does not just sit there wasting money. It was originally BNE-AKL+SYD-AKL and SYD-CHC+MEL-CHC. If Sydney is to stay with it's current 10-14 weekly flights, might as well tag that Auckland flight with Melbourne.
Personally I think ONT can sustain a 77W flight with the now correct departure time from ONT (not sure if CI is interested in moving the TPE departure time a bit later), so it's probably better to swap the 359 back to Oceania and utilize 77W in ONT (or swap between Oceania and Ontario since some of their peak time is different). If CI is really looking for market share, they should come back to LAX with a second flight (time the ONT to late night and bring 6/5 back).
Feb 20, 2019, 1:55 am
#82
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
"According to the report, CAL has been increasing its number of routes over the past few years to include destinations such as Lisbon, Melbourne, London and Ontario. The company has been under pressure to maintain profitability since fuel costs increased last year."
Two things I noticed... CI does not fly to Lisbon and CI recently reduced fuel surcharges 2 times wituin the last 3 months so it does not sound like fuel prices are increasing.
Two things I noticed... CI does not fly to Lisbon and CI recently reduced fuel surcharges 2 times wituin the last 3 months so it does not sound like fuel prices are increasing.
Feb 20, 2019, 8:59 am
#83
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
"According to the report, CAL has been increasing its number of routes over the past few years to include destinations such as Lisbon, Melbourne, London and Ontario. The company has been under pressure to maintain profitability since fuel costs increased last year."
Two things I noticed... CI does not fly to Lisbon and CI recently reduced fuel surcharges 2 times wituin the last 3 months so it does not sound like fuel prices are increasing.
Two things I noticed... CI does not fly to Lisbon and CI recently reduced fuel surcharges 2 times wituin the last 3 months so it does not sound like fuel prices are increasing.
Personally I think ONT can sustain a 77W flight with the now correct departure time from ONT (not sure if CI is interested in moving the TPE departure time a bit later), so it's probably better to swap the 359 back to Oceania and utilize 77W in ONT (or swap between Oceania and Ontario since some of their peak time is different). If CI is really looking for market share, they should come back to LAX with a second flight (time the ONT to late night and bring 6/5 back).
However, he did reveal they're having problems with the A359. He mentioned ever since the A359 entered service at ONT, they've been having weight and balance issues, and in addition, are losing money due to not sending freight cargo back to TPE. So, to that, CI notified them they're bringing back 77W to ONT. He didn't give me a set date when the 77W would be back at ONT. Though, with this monkey wrench thrown at the moment, who knows what's going to happen either ONT gets cut or they bring back the 77W.
Last edited by 26volt; Feb 20, 2019 at 2:01 pm
Feb 20, 2019, 5:26 pm
#84
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: SFO
Programs: BR Diamond, Dynasty Flyer Paragon, Marriott Lifetime Plat
Posts: 1,926
Interesting. Then from were did they get this info.
I was chatting last night with one of the loaders who works the A359 in ONT. I told him of CI possibly being cut from ONT, and he thanked me for the heads up, though was bummed since he and the other workers were hired exclusively to work that flight. If CI pulls out it virtually means they're out of work. Felt bad for him. He told me, nothing has been said to them, so he'll continue to work until they're told something.
However, he did reveal they're having problems with the A359. He mentioned ever since the A359 entered service at ONT, they've been having weight and balance issues, and in addition, are losing money due to not sending freight cargo back to TPE. So, to that, CI notified them they're bringing back 77W to ONT. He didn't give me a set date when the 77W would be back at ONT. Though, with this monkey wrench thrown at the moment, who knows what's going to happen either ONT gets cut or they bring back the 77W.
I was chatting last night with one of the loaders who works the A359 in ONT. I told him of CI possibly being cut from ONT, and he thanked me for the heads up, though was bummed since he and the other workers were hired exclusively to work that flight. If CI pulls out it virtually means they're out of work. Felt bad for him. He told me, nothing has been said to them, so he'll continue to work until they're told something.
However, he did reveal they're having problems with the A359. He mentioned ever since the A359 entered service at ONT, they've been having weight and balance issues, and in addition, are losing money due to not sending freight cargo back to TPE. So, to that, CI notified them they're bringing back 77W to ONT. He didn't give me a set date when the 77W would be back at ONT. Though, with this monkey wrench thrown at the moment, who knows what's going to happen either ONT gets cut or they bring back the 77W.
Feb 20, 2019, 5:38 pm
#85
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
From what he told me, the A350 is rather restrictive to how much cargo it can carry. They've gone to the extent of limiting how much luggage a person can bring. This wasn't an issue with the 77W. He mentions due to the A359's limitations, and not carrying freight cargo, CI is losing $$$ in ONT, and want to bring back the 77W. Though, now the route is in limbo. So who knows if the route survives.
Feb 20, 2019, 6:13 pm
#86
Ambassador, Hong Kong and Macau
Join Date: May 2009
Location: HKG
Programs: Non-top tier Asia Miles member
Posts: 19,799
From what he told me, the A350 is rather restrictive to how much cargo it can carry. They've gone to the extent of limiting how much luggage a person can bring. This wasn't an issue with the 77W. He mentions due to the A359's limitations, and not carrying freight cargo, CI is losing $$$ in ONT, and want to bring back the 77W. Though, now the route is in limbo. So who knows if the route survives.
Feb 20, 2019, 6:31 pm
#87
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
Feb 20, 2019, 7:01 pm
#88
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
Wow that is very weird. According to the stats.
The A350-900 model has specified range of 15,000km.
The B777-300ER according the brochure has even less range than the A350-900.
Well it could be true that the A350 could not carry as much weight as it is a smaller plane but also it uses far less fuel and more efficiently.
Also Boeing would not need to produce the B777-9 if there current model still had the advantage or equal.
Also how they getting cargo when all cargo should be going through LAX as we know ONT is not set up for putting cargo on passenger flights?
I am not convinced CI is less profitable using the A350 compared to the B777-300. The A350 is not range limited as much as the B777-300ER and it flies the longer route to LHR which is a 14-15hr flight.
Anyway this brings up more questions....
The A350-900 model has specified range of 15,000km.
The B777-300ER according the brochure has even less range than the A350-900.
Well it could be true that the A350 could not carry as much weight as it is a smaller plane but also it uses far less fuel and more efficiently.
Also Boeing would not need to produce the B777-9 if there current model still had the advantage or equal.
Also how they getting cargo when all cargo should be going through LAX as we know ONT is not set up for putting cargo on passenger flights?
I am not convinced CI is less profitable using the A350 compared to the B777-300. The A350 is not range limited as much as the B777-300ER and it flies the longer route to LHR which is a 14-15hr flight.
Anyway this brings up more questions....
Feb 20, 2019, 8:24 pm
#89
Join Date: May 2018
Location: LAX, MEX, MLM, ONT, SAL
Programs: DL Silver Medallion
Posts: 127
Well it could be true that the A350 could not carry as much weight as it is a smaller plane...
Also how they getting cargo when all cargo should be going through LAX as we know ONT is not set up for putting cargo on passenger flights?
Anyway this brings up more questions....
From what loader told me CI wants to maximize its profits on both passenger and freight.
Most of us assumed that no cargo was coming in to ONT from TPE, though the loader disproved this. CI contracted Majestic Terminal Services as their service contractor at ONT. They also manage all the cargo by Amazon (Prime Air). Majestic has a small cargo building next to ONT's small International arrivals terminal. When CI used the 77W, they off loaded the freight cargo from 77W, and moved it to their small cargo building. Though, now with the A359, they limited themselves. It would be horrible to think, though after all its CI, they're trying to shove whatever freight they're able to on the A359 to maximize their profits, and due that, its causing these imbalances. I wouldn't be surprised if this is the case, and now want to bring back the 77W.
Feb 21, 2019, 1:45 am
#90
Join Date: Oct 2012
Programs: Dynasty Frequent Flyer (Elite Plus),Accor Platinum
Posts: 1,866
Putting the A350 on the route was to improve the passenger side of profitability. Even so your not talking much difference as the A350-900 is designed to compete with the B777-200/ER from a capacity level. )The A350-1000 has exactly the same approxiamate seating capacity as a B777 and therefore would have easily the same cargo capabilities.
It could be down to CI's poor planning for cargo operations the A350 will make more money on each kg of cargo that is flown but of course lose money if they have to pay a fee to get that additional cargo to go another airline or etc.. That A350 can fly another 2-3hrs easily for example TPE-JFK. If passenger numbers are increasing then it would be good idea to bring the B777 back as the A350 is in higher demand on other routes where loads are maybe not as large.
While the B777 is fine to fly in Business or premium economy, flying in economy is hands down better on the A350.
Also I think from memory the Rolls royce engines only have 87k pounds of thrust per engine where the B777-300ER is significantly higher which limits the amount of max load the A350 can handle.
It could be down to CI's poor planning for cargo operations the A350 will make more money on each kg of cargo that is flown but of course lose money if they have to pay a fee to get that additional cargo to go another airline or etc.. That A350 can fly another 2-3hrs easily for example TPE-JFK. If passenger numbers are increasing then it would be good idea to bring the B777 back as the A350 is in higher demand on other routes where loads are maybe not as large.
While the B777 is fine to fly in Business or premium economy, flying in economy is hands down better on the A350.
Also I think from memory the Rolls royce engines only have 87k pounds of thrust per engine where the B777-300ER is significantly higher which limits the amount of max load the A350 can handle.
Last edited by tris06; Feb 21, 2019 at 3:46 am