Cathay Pacific adds second Boeing 777 onto Sydney-Hong Kong

^

I know Cathay has reached their slots cap in Australia but I really hoped they can try to retime the schedule in and out Brisbane.

Up to six, maybe seven hours, First can be less of a need. Longer than that, First really should be on offer.

Their objective was to increase capacity. The current aircraft (3 class 777ER) fits that bill. Why do you think First class should be offered?

In case you missed it in my post above "First is ideal for long haul" (greater than 7 hours) because for long journeys the extra comfort First offers actually is quite valuable (i.e. demand exists). CX's 77H has 275 seats including First (6 seats), that's already a quite a boost to the CX 33G (242 seats). And CX has excellent First.

I think anything under 10h, Business with a flat bed is sufficient. But that's my point of view. With a quality airline you should get that individual attention even in Business. First is just decadent. But I don't move in such circles so I don't know (cannot appreciate) the whimsical requirements of that set.

I do pay to travel First, and having travelled CX J to HKG, I'd certainly pay for First over that. I'd rather travel on Qantas' refurbed A330-300 J than do CX J again (and Qantas' new product will be on the MEL-HKG route soon enough).

From direct experience I can tell you that even with premium airlines there is generally a huge difference in service between First and Business (even on CX).

I have to say TheRealBabushka saying First is decadent just because you don't travel in it, smacks of something. Those that only travel in Economy no doubt say the same about those in the Business cabin. Don't wear green tinted glasses on this one, it gets no-one anywhere.

Purely from a functional perspective gippsflyer. Don't read too much into it. But each to their own. On another note, I've just spotted a CX 747 on the tarmac in Melbourne. What is it doing there? CX doesn't fly 747 to Australia do they?

As CX offers First over shorter distance routes already, purely from a functional perspective I think it is well open to ask why it does not extend such cabin service to Australia. If this was not the case, you may have had a point (rather than a riff on what just matched up for you).

Can't help you with your sighting on a CX 747. You might have to do some sleuthing on the interwebs for that one lol.

Was it possible that the CX 747 was a freighter? The run their 744 and 748 freighters to Melbourne.

The current A330 CX uses for Aus has 251 seats (J39/W21/Y191)

A 4 class 77H has 275 seats (F6/J53/W34/Y182) and actually a reduction in Econ capacity...

Doesn't really make sense for CX to put the 77H on this route given the current configurations, even if it wanted to offer F to SYD.

More cheap Economy seats! Given that airlines barely make much profit off Y pax (they pay for the fuel and that's about it) that is what really doesn't make sense. Profit comes from premium cabins, not the back of the plane.

@gippsflyer You may well be correct regarding the yield for premium cabins over economy. However, I don't think you give CX enough credit, they didn't become a world class airline by not understanding their business and their customers (and their cargo).

Perhaps they have looked at first and decided they can make more money flying a 777 with F class to another market rather than Sydney. Lets not forget, there was a general reduction in premium traffic following the GFC, which has (to my knowledge) not returned to those same levels. 

At the end of the day, it's easy for us all to be airchair airline CEO's, but we should acknowledge that we don't have access to all the information. 

It's a bit much to say "we don't have access to all the information" after making a number of unsupported assumptions before that Hutch (risk playing "airchair" CEO with such calls).

What does world class airline actually mean, beyond a fuzzy marketing term. If we are still experiencing the lingering effects of the GFC and "reduction in premium traffic" is CX flying half empty Business cabins (during the GFC corporate travellers got shunted to Premium Economy)? No. A lot of presumptions based on non-existent data.

What is not non-existent is that profit on Y fares (no may be about it) is low, profit yield, if any, is minimum. If you can actually produce hard data that says otherwise (rather than just floating opinions) I will cede your comments merit, otherwise it appears lightweight indeed.

Yes, however I think I acknowledged I am making assumptions and don't have access to the whole picture. 

There is not dispute that the premium cabin returns a greater yield Y. 

I am not going to argue the term "world class airline" with you when we are discussing Cathay Pacific. Cathay's performance year after year does not need me to clarify that - and frankly you already know that.

In relation to the  of premium cabins, I base my point on things I read in Aviaiton business maginess, CAPA, ATW etc. If they have it wrong, then so be it. 

I stand by my comment that we don't have all the information. We don't have access to CX's data and that's what they would base where and what they fly XYZ to (or at least you hope they would). Surely you are not of the opinion that CX is so poorly managed that they wouldn't fly First here if they thought they could get the best return on their investment (asset).

Whether you agree with me is irrelvant. We are both making a point based on half a picture. I can acknowledge that. 

That's just puffery hutch. Feel free to provide specific reference to these pieces of high quality industry analysis (beyond marketing/advertorial pieces) and I will certainly look at them (but making general vague references to them doesn't help here).

I don't object to different opinions, but I do take irritant at people dressing up personal opinions as substantiated fact without the evidence to do so, particularly when they drop in on analysis of mine to do so. If you had stated your opinion first, I would not have bothered to point out your errors, but as you specifically tried to call my point into question, I'll certainly respond to you under those circumstances.

After all, I've not pretended to speak for CX or held out that I know what it does or why (like an armchair CEO), in my posts. It doesn't worry me that you don't see a need for First, what I find weird is for your need to make me agree with your viewpoint (which on the basis on what you've presented seems very unlikely indeed to happen).

Just to prove Hutch I expect nothing more than the least I would hold myself responsible to you, please find IATA data proving that premium class travel delivers magnitude of orders greater revenue than it's actual traffic (for example, the average here was that while premium classes accounted for only 6.5% of the overall traffic, it returned 30.5% of overall revenue). That's not an opinion, that's verfied fact.

For your ease, I copy and pasted my second paragraph of my previous comment:

"There is not dispute that the premium cabin returns a greater yield Y. "

So I am not sure what you are arguing about. I am well aware that premium cabins return a greater yield than economy. Do you like arguing?

Really, "you may well be correct" doesn't equal there is no dispute this is the case. It casts doubt that it the case and you could frankly own up to your words and accept that you put forward arguments with little to no evidentiary support and tried to pass them off as more than just armchair CEO opinions. At least I do you the courtesy of providing the evidence in support of any statements I make - you confirm the specious nature yours by still failing to provide anything beyond mere words. Do you like just creating hot air?

@Gippsflyer – perhaps not the greatest use of words. But I clarified that in my second post. You are still arguing about it.

As for your other comments. Respectfully, do not tell me what that things I say “doesn't help here”. Unless you become the editor of this website, that is not your role.

I am entitled to my position. You can consider it puffery all you want. That is your right. I am not going to spend my time, researching and going through the mountains of aviation material out there to win a victory with some guy online. It is a hollow victory and pointless. You will probably consider this a victory and as far as I am concerned you can take the win if it makes you feel better.

You have stated “dressing up personal opinions as substantiated fact without the evidence to do so”. Well, several times throughout my comments, I clearly stated that “We are both making a point based on half a picture. I can acknowledge that”,” Yes, however I think I acknowledged I am making assumptions and don't have access to the whole picture.”, “ it's easy for us all to be airchair airline CEO's, we should acknowledge that we don't have access to all the information”.

I have not expressed my views as “substantiated facts” and I have clearly outlined I am making assumptions.

Anyway, good luck to you. The viewers can see how you are responding to everyone else’s opinions on this post. I hope you show people in the 'real world' more respect.. I’ll leave it at that.

You are entitled to an opinion Hutch just as much as I am. However an opinion is different from a fact, and when you call a fact given into question (particularly after another person's post citing that fact) you are not entitled to a free pass from scrutiny. It's not like I just came across a posting of yours, and made a point of making debate on the facts within in, on opinion alone. I didn't ask for your input, you gave it on your own initiative, and when you clearly weren't sure of the probity of your statements, I'd say that's not a very wise thing to do. Have you, after all, added anything of value? 

Your comments in your first post were all about calling my post into question, not qualifying your statements. When challenged, it's only then you start backsliding while still trying to justify your point of view. Even now, when it should be clear to you that I don't find any merit in your opinions, you still try to obtain validation. 

If you want respect Hutch, it's pretty much understood universally, the way to go around it is not to be disrespectful first. I certainly haven't resorted to poisoning the well like you just have. Its perfectly fine to play the ball, not the man (because then it's no longer a debate but a personal attack). I've certainly called the quality of your debate justifiably into question (because you opened that path yourself), I see little benefit in calling you names however even if you are rude at times.

I will never ever make the mistake of making general comments on your comment ever again... it is not worth headache. I apologise if I come across rude, but in fairness, I don't think you can lecture me on that.

I'm always happy to talk to with you hutch and to your credit in your second last post in this thread you do admit it was not the greatest use of your words in your first post (if you had said as much in your second post, I would have left it as that). I think it is unhelpful to think about making responses as victories (as you refer to in your second last post here, in the third para), as there is nothing to be won or lost. It's just about sharing information (facts) or asking questions to obtain information. And be assured I haven't taken anything you've said personally, I've only viewed this on the quality of the information not on the persons behind them. Enjoy your afternoon Hutch.

Regarding profit on CX economy, while not exactly quantative I did come across this snippet on AirReview (which has the best seat maps ever, although its a bit dated now) which I read a while back and though gave a little insight on Y contribution to profit vs J/F:

With all that, it can come as a surprise to find that some [economy] passengers - the ones that use the airline regularly - call the airline Cathay Pathetic. In part this is because the airline loves those up the front rather than economy passengers: and no wonder. The Chief Executive has recently complained that it takes 20 economy passengers to pay the profits of one up the pointy end. [Emphasis added] 

If economy seats are so useless, why doesn't Cathay remove all the economy seats and fly premium-only flights for "better yields and more profit"?  Even though most of us aren't exactly fond of them, they do serve a purpose.

For the same reason why even hardcore LCCs offer premium class seats - all one class aircraft (except for very low demand routes) don't work and no-one has suggested that's that case. There does have to be a balanced mix however - too much Economy and you end up with very low or non-existent yield, too many premium seats and you exceed demand. 

CX has a very small First cabin (only six seats), that's over half to a fourth smaller than the First cabins currently flying out of Australia by Qantas or Singapore and certainly not greater than any existing First cabin currently sold for Australian departures (clearly demand is there, airlines don't run unprofitable premium cabins, yet plenty of airlines continue to supply First cabins for Australian market - it's not like airlines can't change seating layouts when needed given a year or two).

After all, we are not seeing CX pull out all it's premium seats to go to an all economy offering are we. So why would we see the other extreme?

Hi Greg84, it's because while QF and CX are both in OneWorld they are not sharing good friendship. In fact it's a rather a quiet hostility. Maybe with a change of key personnel, something might happen in the future, but I wouldn't count on it. Qantas has even bypassed CX to do codeshares with mainland Chinese airlines just to thumb it's nose at CX.

I agree that there are some merits to such a hook-up though. 

Something to do with Jetstar Hong Kong perhaps?

The friction did exist before then, but that was certainly grit being ground into the wound (and CX did pay them back by making sure start up is like crawling over broken glass). 

Congratulations on making your first AusBT post Nate82. Strange presumptions though - like 1.6 seats sold (how does that work?) and the ability to foresee all future loadings and all highly protected internal CX market research to say things like "results show It will not be viable". Bum pluck or do you have mutant powers lol.

Gippsflyer maybe because im answering your earlier post about why Cathay dont send the 4 class 77H downunder. Understand now?

Its my job to know. Theres far more but yes as you said Internal CX so ill stop there. 

Thanks

I would think anyone working for CX in Operations or Marketing would have better English language skills than demonstrated in your posts, or at least understand you can't buy a fraction of a First class seat :-)

I think Nate was talking in averages. So that if there were say 6 first class seats available on a flight, on average only 1.6 would be sold to full fare paying passengers and the rest are taken up by points upgrades and redemptions (ie. on any one flight there would only be one or two passengers paying top dollar). In other words it isn't a product that was directly driving revenue for the airline.

Judging by the capacity CX offers, you'd have to say no First offering isn't hurting their business.

Given we haven't had CX First out of Australia for years any such numbers on future sales would seem little better than data absent assumptions. CX First only has six seats, and given CX can readily control upgrade/redemption to First cabin, it's a moot argument in my view.

After all, if there was no demand (or insufficient demand) for First out of Australia, EK, SQ, QF, etc wouldn't be offering First cabins on their services. Certainly no hard evidence has been offered to show there is no First market here in Australia, other than the questionable word of someone pretending they are a high ranked CX employee (which given the only joined AusBT last night, is dubious indeed).

Hmmm, Nate.

"apart from the 340s which are been retired"

Those pathetic pig-toenail economy class seats and coffins with business class service still chug all the way to Auckland.

Not comparing Apples with Apples there. How many passengers originating in HKG are travelling to CNS and vice-versa. CX has a massive hub to distribute passengers to, if QF flew to HKG from CNS they would need to fill the plane with O&D passengers, not an easy task.

Indeed, even says so in the article above

"The majority of Cathay's Australian passengers fly onwards from Hong Kong"

Something that many just cannot get a grip on when they talk about why airline XYZ flies AUS to their hub multiple times a day and Qantas can only justify an A330 or cannot justify flights at all (PER-SIN PER-HKG anyone)