As per well informed "cxsecret", CX will retire its first 5 77W aircraft later this year. Additionally, 10-abreast 77W upgrade is due to start in March this year. Plan to increase seating capacity was announced in 2016, but no further timeline was given at the time.

FB
https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

4. Five of the 77H will be retired / returned
7. Installation of 10 abreast seating on all 777 will start from Mar 2018

KarelXWB wrote:

As per well informed "cxsecret", CX will retire its first 5 77W aircraft later this year. Additionally, 10-abreast 77W upgrade is due to start in March this year. Plan to increase seating capacity was announced in 2016, but no further timeline was given at the time.

FB
https://www.facebook.com/cxsecret/posts ... 4570305777

4. Five of the 77H will be retired / returned
7. Installation of 10 abreast seating on all 777 will start from Mar 2018

Upgrade? I guess it is for CX, but not for their passengers.

cledaybuck wrote:

Upgrade? I guess it is for CX, but not for their passengers.

Well, from the carrier's point of view, it could be called a "capacity upgrade".

The one point that I think is more important is this:

15. ""Buy on board"" Menu will be introduced on all MNL, CEB, SGN and midnight sector on SIN, KIX, NRT, CGK and ICN

Hmm...so CX finally go down that path? For MNL and CEB there is still PR (Some may avoid them, but I doubt they would anymore if CX go cheap). SGN still has HX on that route, along with VN. SIN? SQ. CGK? GA. KIX, NRT, and ICN are cutthroat and this would make even less people paying a little bit more for CX (as compare to HX, or even JL/NH/KE/OZ).

Yes, one can argue that HKers in general are spoiled (Hot meal on those 1.5 hr flight to TPE?), but when your competitions (chiefly HX) already offered a lower fare while having good enough service, I don't see how cutting back on service would help their loads.

As for the retiring plane - B-KPB is a definite according to a poster on FB. I guess B-KPC, B-KPG, B-KPH are 3 more? Don't know which one will be the 5th, though.

Wow, CX is surely retiring their 77Ws very quickly. If i recall correctly, the oldest ones have only been around for a little over 10 years

Well I wonder what all the people on here who always s*&^ on the US and EU 3 for having 10 abreast will have to say about it now. I guess we won't be hearing the "well CX doesn't have 10 abreast blah blah blah blah" anymore.

BA could be a candidate for 3 of CX' 77W, as replacement for their non-ER 772s. Although other sources say BA could source these from LATAM.

So, A350s will effectively replace some of CX 77W. One of the destinations where this will take place is AMS, which will see the A35G later this year according tomthe same source (I assume this is an internal CX code for the A350-900). Too bad, I was hoping AMS would see the CX A350-1000.... perhaps later.

United has reportedly poked around some of the 77Ws coming off lease to EK, expect the same for the CX birds. Part of the issue is sourcing interior parts in a timely manner.

From what I understand, former CX frames would be strongly preferred over EK, but United has not shown any aversion to taking on aircraft which need a lot of work to bring them in sync with the rest of the United fleet from a maintenance, equipment and documentation standpoint (see ex-CZ 319/320s).

Is CX still getting 777-300s from Emirates? What at the plans for the existing 777-200/-300 fleet?

GE90man wrote:

Wow, CX is surely retiring their 77Ws very quickly. If i recall correctly, the oldest ones have only been around for a little over 10 years

Sale-leasebacks and leases are expiring.

kaitak744 wrote:

Is CX still getting 777-300s from Emirates? What at the plans for the existing 777-200/-300 fleet?

The 772s will be gone soon, probably as early as this year I read somewhere else. No words about the 773s, but as they are early-builts and employed on regional routes and therefore relatively high-cycled it would be surprising if they would fly much longer than 2020. No words for a long time about the rumoured deal with EK (or its 773 lessors) about those planes last year retired by EK, so chances are that plan is off.

The 777 with 10 across has such a odd seat leg arrangement, only the outboard middle seats have decent foot space.

The fact that 77Hs specifically have been chosen for the glue factory, to be replaced by A359/K means that CX really don't see much F demand on their routes, if they're putting money on 10-abreasting the rest of the 77W fleet, that points to them using the 77Ws for a good while yet, supplemented by A359/K here and there.

zakuivcustom wrote:

The one point that I think is more important is this:

15. ""Buy on board"" Menu will be introduced on all MNL, CEB, SGN and midnight sector on SIN, KIX, NRT, CGK and ICN

Hmm...so CX finally go down that path? For MNL and CEB there is still PR (Some may avoid them, but I doubt they would anymore if CX go cheap). SGN still has HX on that route, along with VN. SIN? SQ. CGK? GA. KIX, NRT, and ICN are cutthroat and this would make even less people paying a little bit more for CX (as compare to HX, or even JL/NH/KE/OZ).

Yes, one can argue that HKers in general are spoiled (Hot meal on those 1.5 hr flight to TPE?), but when your competitions (chiefly HX) already offered a lower fare while having good enough service, I don't see how cutting back on service would help their loads.

As for the retiring plane - B-KPB is a definite according to a poster on FB. I guess B-KPC, B-KPG, B-KPH are 3 more? Don't know which one will be the 5th, though.

Yes I agreed. And CX's price is definitely not a little bit more (actually it is a lot more) expensive and really no point to chose to fly CX for such red-eye flights.

I thought it was only the 773 fleet that was going ten abreast, not the 77Ws? A 14 hour service to between HKG & JFK on a ten abreast 777 is the definition of hell (despite CX's rather good on board service).


Changes like this show why SQ are head and shoulders above CX.

zkojq wrote:

I thought it was only the 773 fleet that was going ten abreast, not the 77Ws? A 14 hour service to between HKG & JFK on a ten abreast 777 is the definition of hell (despite CX's rather good on board service).


Changes like this show why SQ are head and shoulders above CX.

Maybe it was the 773’s initially but the 77W’s are getting 19 abreast as well.

There would be more 10 abreast carriers than 9 now, sure the 9 abreast stand out but the likes of SQ, NH,JL I guess command a higher yield where as the HKG market and CX has more competition. CX certainly aren’t the only ones running a 10 abreast 777 on 14-16hr flights. UA 77W’s in direct competition to CX do to HKG as well.

ZK-NBT wrote:

zkojq wrote:

I thought it was only the 773 fleet that was going ten abreast, not the 77Ws? A 14 hour service to between HKG & JFK on a ten abreast 777 is the definition of hell (despite CX's rather good on board service).


Changes like this show why SQ are head and shoulders above CX.

Maybe it was the 773’s initially but the 77W’s are getting 19 abreast as well.

There would be more 10 abreast carriers than 9 now, sure the 9 abreast stand out but the likes of SQ, NH,JL I guess command a higher yield where as the HKG market and CX has more competition. CX certainly aren’t the only ones running a 10 abreast 777 on 14-16hr flights. UA 77W’s in direct competition to CX do to HKG as well.

AA does on their 77W's also (i.e. both their HKG flights, to LAX and DFW, are 10-abrest). UA will eventually go all 10-abrest also, although for now it's only on HKG-SFO.

P.S. JL/NH just operate things much more different anyway. JL especially goes highly premium on all their international aircrafts. I mean, 195 seats on a 789? That's like a A321 for most carrier .

ZK-NBT wrote:

Maybe it was the 773’s initially but the 77W’s are getting 19 abreast as well.

Wow, 6-7-6 on a 77W? Who would have thought.

MYT332 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Maybe it was the 773’s initially but the 77W’s are getting 19 abreast as well.

Wow, 6-7-6 on a 77W? Who would have thought.

They really squeeze them in, lower costs than all, haha my bad.

JustSomeDood wrote:

The fact that 77Hs specifically have been chosen for the glue factory, to be replaced by A359/K means that CX really don't see much F demand on their routes, if they're putting money on 10-abreasting the rest of the 77W fleet, that points to them using the 77Ws for a good while yet, supplemented by A359/K here and there.

Can I urge people not to believe everything on this thread or unofficial Facebook/Twitter feeds as being correct. B-HNA/B/C/D/L will be replaced by the 773s from a lessor by B-HNU/V/W/X/S. The timeframe for that at this stage is over 13 months starting later in 2018. The seating configuration I understand will have similar business class as the 73Z with an increase in EY seats over the 73Z configuration through 10 across. These aircraft will be 777-300s, non ER. The addition of these aircraft is included in the 2017 interim results.

As for the catering changes, I would suggest people hold off until something more official is announced. They have brought back normal hot meals on TPE flights in the last year, this might be something lost in translation. I have heard a rumor of being able to preorder your meal selection before the flight so your choice is available and catered for.

zkojq wrote:

I thought it was only the 773 fleet that was going ten abreast, not the 77Ws? A 14 hour service to between HKG & JFK on a ten abreast 777 is the definition of hell (despite CX's rather good on board service).


Changes like this show why SQ are head and shoulders above CX.

SQ isn't going to be far behind CX nor will any "premium" carrier. Consumers are dictating which way the market is going. SQ is bleeding money, they aren't going to be remaining premium at the back end much longer.

ZK-NBT wrote:

MYT332 wrote:

They really squeeze them in, lower costs than all, haha my bad.

My British sarcastic nature just couldn't be held back!

Oh well another B777 carrier to cross off my list, pity too as CX is pretty good and their 6F, 53J, 34Y+ & 182Y [Total=275], 9 abreast B77Ws on HKG-ZRH were often the best value from SYD to central Europe, although you still had to endure the 53J, 32 Y+, 268Y [Total=353] on SYD-HKG but at least that was only 7-8 hours v 12-13 hours west of HKG, although the rumor is that CX is going all A350 to Australia, that we will wait & see if its true.

Gemuser

I think it is wrong to assume that CX will keep charging a premium price for Economy after they move to 10-abreast.

Moving to 10-abreast will allow CX a lot more flexibility in their pricing competitiveness. I remember that after Air Canada moved to 10-abreast on their 77W, they dropped the fare of HKG-YVR by 20% immediately. That kills the demand for Economy Class on CX. Honestly, except for people in this forum, most people traveling on Economy Class don't understand there is a 9-abreast 777 config and a 10-abreast config. All my friends and colleagues travel a lot within Asia and across the Pacific, and NONE of them realized the planes were used to be 9-abreast. They just go for the cheapest fare. Among my friends who travel between Hong Kong and Canada regularly, I am the only one flying CX now, after AC reconfigured to 10-abreast, because now AC is much cheaper. They now all fly AC. They don't like the service, but they just keep buying AC tickets.

CX just needs to make sure it can pack its Economy cabin, so it needs to be competitive in pricing. I don't like 10-abreast 777, but I think CX is making the right choice for the business.

par13del wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Quite frankly, if DL so desired to get 77W's, they would have brought some already. But no, they decided that it's not necessary.

Well they did talk about the price of second hand frames having little value which sent Boeing into a tissy, so no, if they wanted they would not bought since they were still questioning the price.

well if there so cheap they sure haven't bought them yet and A359's are working for DL now i believe or will be shortly. Words are wind until DL starts buying

ZK-NBT wrote:

Maybe it was the 773’s initially but the 77W’s are getting 19 abreast as well.

There would be more 10 abreast carriers than 9 now, sure the 9 abreast stand out but the likes of SQ, NH,JL I guess command a higher yield where as the HKG market and CX has more competition. CX certainly aren’t the only ones running a 10 abreast 777 on 14-16hr flights. UA 77W’s in direct competition to CX do to HKG as well.

Two wrongs, don't make a right. The "solace" that other airlines do it too doesn't make the seat any more comfortable.

zakuivcustom wrote:

AA does on their 77W's also (i.e. both their HKG flights, to LAX and DFW, are 10-abrest). UA will eventually go all 10-abrest also, although for now it's only on HKG-SFO.

P.S. JL/NH just operate things much more different anyway. JL especially goes highly premium on all their international aircrafts. I mean, 195 seats on a 789? That's like a A321 for most carrier .

Point taken: a long haul flight in an AA or UA 10 abreast 77W is probably even more miserable than one would be on CX. But again, the knowledge that others have it worse doesn't make the seat feel any less cramped.

RL777 wrote:

SQ isn't going to be far behind CX nor will any "premium" carrier. Consumers are dictating which way the market is going. SQ is bleeding money, they aren't going to be remaining premium at the back end much longer.

Thanks to a certain fuel hedge, CX is bleeding money even faster. Regardless, the Singaporeans will take having nine abreast over the dreaded CX's ten abreast as a point of pride.

3-4-3 is fine.... as long as they increase their seat pitch.

zkojq wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Maybe it was the 773’s initially but the 77W’s are getting 19 abreast as well.

There would be more 10 abreast carriers than 9 now, sure the 9 abreast stand out but the likes of SQ, NH,JL I guess command a higher yield where as the HKG market and CX has more competition. CX certainly aren’t the only ones running a 10 abreast 777 on 14-16hr flights. UA 77W’s in direct competition to CX do to HKG as well.

Two wrongs, don't make a right. The "solace" that other airlines do it too doesn't make the seat any more comfortable.

zakuivcustom wrote:

AA does on their 77W's also (i.e. both their HKG flights, to LAX and DFW, are 10-abrest). UA will eventually go all 10-abrest also, although for now it's only on HKG-SFO.

P.S. JL/NH just operate things much more different anyway. JL especially goes highly premium on all their international aircrafts. I mean, 195 seats on a 789? That's like a A321 for most carrier .

Point taken: a long haul flight in an AA or UA 10 abreast 77W is probably even more miserable than one would be on CX. But again, the knowledge that others have it worse doesn't make the seat feel any less cramped.

RL777 wrote:

SQ isn't going to be far behind CX nor will any "premium" carrier. Consumers are dictating which way the market is going. SQ is bleeding money, they aren't going to be remaining premium at the back end much longer.

Thanks to a certain fuel hedge, CX is bleeding money even faster. Regardless, the Singaporeans will take having nine abreast over the dreaded CX's ten abreast as a point of pride.

Yep totally re the 10 abreast thing, it’s the way of the world, we have options, if you don’t like it go somewhere else. Most book on price though and the majority of the flying public wouldn’t notice a difference.

Retiring 77W while 77A is still flying strong...

YLWbased

ZK-NBT wrote:

Most book on price though and the majority of the flying public wouldn’t notice a difference.

I really, really hate that the above is true - but it is true nonetheless.

That said, I *do* go somewhere else - NZ lost my custom a few years ago partly because of this; and 10 abreast on a 777 is the one config I flatly refuse to fly. It's a shame more people don't concur.

Lets call it an upgrade & focus on the great new IFE system!

The usual drill. If you can't convince them, confuse them.

frigatebird wrote:

BA could be a candidate for 3 of CX' 77W, as replacement for their non-ER 772s. Although other sources say BA could source these from LATAM.

So, A350s will effectively replace some of CX 77W. One of the destinations where this will take place is AMS, which will see the A35G later this year according tomthe same source (I assume this is an internal CX code for the A350-900). Too bad, I was hoping AMS would see the CX A350-1000.... perhaps later.

I heard down the grapevine that the 772A's could potentially end up at Gatwick to launch new routes and use up the new Monarch slots.

raylee67 wrote:

I think it is wrong to assume that CX will keep charging a premium price for Economy after they move to 10-abreast.

Moving to 10-abreast will allow CX a lot more flexibility in their pricing competitiveness. I remember that after Air Canada moved to 10-abreast on their 77W, they dropped the fare of HKG-YVR by 20% immediately. That kills the demand for Economy Class on CX. Honestly, except for people in this forum, most people traveling on Economy Class don't understand there is a 9-abreast 777 config and a 10-abreast config. All my friends and colleagues travel a lot within Asia and across the Pacific, and NONE of them realized the planes were used to be 9-abreast. They just go for the cheapest fare. Among my friends who travel between Hong Kong and Canada regularly, I am the only one flying CX now, after AC reconfigured to 10-abreast, because now AC is much cheaper. They now all fly AC. They don't like the service, but they just keep buying AC tickets.

CX just needs to make sure it can pack its Economy cabin, so it needs to be competitive in pricing. I don't like 10-abreast 777, but I think CX is making the right choice for the business.

^^^ this right here is someone who looks at CX and the airline industry realistically. IF they do alter the seating to 10 abreast on the 77W (Zeke wrote it’s only on the 773) it does make business sense considering MOST of the public vote with their wallet, not comfort (i.e 10 abreast vs 9 abreast). It sucks for us that know and feel the difference but, it’s reality.

Arion640 wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

BA could be a candidate for 3 of CX' 77W, as replacement for their non-ER 772s. Although other sources say BA could source these from LATAM.

So, A350s will effectively replace some of CX 77W. One of the destinations where this will take place is AMS, which will see the A35G later this year according tomthe same source (I assume this is an internal CX code for the A350-900). Too bad, I was hoping AMS would see the CX A350-1000.... perhaps later.

I heard down the grapevine that the 772A's could potentially end up at Gatwick to launch new routes and use up the new Monarch slots.

Very unlikely, the BA 772A aircraft are in a high-J config and would need a lot of money spent on the interiors to Gatwick them.

zkojq wrote:

I thought it was only the 773 fleet that was going ten abreast, not the 77Ws? A 14 hour service to between HKG & JFK on a ten abreast 777 is the definition of hell (despite CX's rather good on board service).


Changes like this show why SQ are head and shoulders above CX.

wait what?

CX has way more premium cabin capacity and carries way more business and first class passenges


at least CX does not have a minion called scoot /tigerair /Silkair ( all terrible airlines- AI is better)
KA is even better than CX on regional flights...
at least CX has power points on every single aircraft , can SQ keep with with the times? most people have laptops/devices

When SQ gets basic requirements right and abandons transforming itself slowly into the Ryanair of Asia ( scoot) then call it premium.

Yes CX stuffed up with the fuel hedge, at least it is a profitable business ( without the fuel hedge stuff up)
SQ did not even stuff hub the fuel hedge and is making a loss!- SQ has way more long term structural issues.
an obviously believes creating a new competitor to take away business from the core airline is the way to go... dat logic

Thing is.Whatever airline you care to mention ,they wouldn't be adding seats and going X10 unless they could fill them.Otherwise it would be a waste of time,money and additional weight -SFC for absolutely no gain -and a major minus for the loss of comfort for every other Y customer.So the additional demand must be there.Bodes well for the 779 on that basis which has a standard 17.5" for Yx10.

raylee67 wrote:

I remember that after Air Canada moved to 10-abreast on their 77W, they dropped the fare of HKG-YVR by 20% immediately.

I'd love to see a source on that. 20% of all airfares? Why would the airline do that? More likely 20% off a handful of sale fares.

raylee67 wrote:

That kills the demand for Economy Class on CX. Honestly, except for people in this forum, most people traveling on Economy Class don't understand there is a 9-abreast 777 config and a 10-abreast config. All my friends and colleagues travel a lot within Asia and across the Pacific, and NONE of them realized the planes were used to be 9-abreast. They just go for the cheapest fare. Among my friends who travel between Hong Kong and Canada regularly, I am the only one flying CX now, after AC reconfigured to 10-abreast, because now AC is much cheaper. They now all fly AC. They don't like the service, but they just keep buying AC tickets.

Passengers might not associate the comfort level with the aircraft, but they certainly do with the airline. There are lots of people in New Zealand who avoid flying with Cathay Pacific due to the awful seats on their A340s which they flew here for years (the ones that don't recline properly). A shame that the airline has that reputation, since the A350s that they fly to AKL are very, very comfortable for economy passengers.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yep totally re the 10 abreast thing, it’s the way of the world, we have options, if you don’t like it go somewhere else.

That's the thing - I did vote with my feet. Since Air New Zealand introduced 10Y in the 777s, I avoided flying with the airline long haul for years. Why wouldn't I when there are much more comfortable options (many of which are cheaper)? It's better now since they now have many 787s which aren't flying sardine tins.

Still, due to aircraft subs, I've ended up on two Air New Zealand 10Y 777s on short haul sectors this year. Both were awful.

Gasman wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

Most book on price though and the majority of the flying public wouldn’t notice a difference.

I really, really hate that the above is true - but it is true nonetheless.

That said, I *do* go somewhere else - NZ lost my custom a few years ago partly because of this; and 10 abreast on a 777 is the one config I flatly refuse to fly. It's a shame more people don't concur.

Same here. The good news is that Qantas now flies A330s transtasman. The experience is head and shoulders above Air New Zealand's 777s and quite a bit more spacious than the 787s. Combined with the fact that most of Qantas' transtasman fares are noticeably cheaper than Air New Zealand's "works" fares (comparing like with like) means I don't have any regrets.

Kashmon wrote:

at least CX does not have a minion called scoot /tigerair /Silkair ( all terrible airlines- AI is better)

The creation of Scoot is a smart way to tap into the LCC market without diluting SQ's own image and customer experience. CX's only defence against LCCs is 1) the lack of available slots at HKG and 2) adding more Y seats to their current aircraft.....which dilutes their image and customer experience. When people fly Scoot, they know it is an LCC so they can keep their expectations in line. When people fly with Cathay Pacific expectations are high (thanks to the airline's excellent reputation) but if they are squeezed into sardine like seats and made to pay for meals, they will struggle to justify the price premium and will be more likely to save cash and book with Hong Kong Airlines next time around.

I don't know what the problem with Silkair is. I've never had troubles with them.

Kashmon wrote:

KA is even better than CX on regional flights...

KA is good, no arguments there.

Kashmon wrote:

at least CX has power points on every single aircraft , can SQ keep with with the times? most people have laptops/devices

Do KA's old A320s/A321s have power points?

Kashmon wrote:

When SQ gets basic requirements right and abandons transforming itself slowly into the Ryanair of Asia ( scoot) then call it premium.

Why is Scoot/Tiger bad? It makes the SQ group money, it allows them to compete with the LCCs like Air Asia, Lion, Jetstar Asia, Citi, Vietjet etc who they wouldn't otherwise be able to compete against.

FWIW Scoot's 787s have more legroom than Ryanair's 737s.

Kashmon wrote:

SQ did not even stuff hub the fuel hedge and is making a loss!- SQ has way more long term structural issues.

The SQ group is profitable.

Kashmon wrote:

an obviously believes creating a new competitor to take away business from the core airline is the way to go... dat logic

The whole point of Scoot is not to undermine Singapore Air, but to compliment it. Qantas and Jetstar manage to work together harmoniously without destroying one and other.

ZK-NBT wrote:

Yep totally re the 10 abreast thing, it’s the way of the world, we have options, if you don’t like it go somewhere else. Most book on price though and the majority of the flying public wouldn’t notice a difference.

The thing is, when you compare your flight options before purchasing, on your favourite flight search engine, or even on the airline websites, these details are never disclosed. Sometimes the aircraft type is not even clearly displayed. You can't expect the flying public to guess the comfort and amenities of their flight. Only frequent flyers of a certain airline will know by experience.

DL_Mech wrote:

The 777 with 10 across has such a odd seat leg arrangement, only the outboard middle seats have decent foot space.

Yeah, I do have to agree on that. And I'm not a particularly strong detractor of 10-across on the 777....still, the seat legs are indeed bothersome.

Going back to CX it's worth remembering that they had like forever 10-across on their TriStars as well so I was actually surprised to see them stay this long with 9-abreast on a wider frame...

SQ's financial results disagree with you.

Adding a new airline to take away passengers from your main airline is competition and it is silly as it does not address the cost issues in the legacy business- QF gets away with it because Australia has and always will be a virtual one airline monopoly and the Aussie government is in bed with QF. QF would be making more revenue if all those Jetstar flights were QF flights, also QF only recently started making money and that is when they decided to basically HALT JQ growth and go back to growing and sorting QF's issues out

Does KA fly their A320's long haul?!!
also KA A320's almost all of them have USB ports and power sockets
MI is no better than Air India- AI actually has better food.

SQ has long haul aircraft without power sockets.... not a very premium offer. Budget airlines are superior to SQ.
not to mention SQ uses lie flat business class on some 8 hour flights, all flights over 5 hours get full flat beds on CX
your assertion is completely wrong

CX faces more competition than SQ- more airlines and more flights to HKG than Changi yet has retained more of its market share compared to the miserly 35% SQ has at Changi ( I know it is hard for Singapore to admit HKG is way more important)

this idea that SQ is more premium or SQ is doing well is hilarious ( CX will surpass SQ to Europe next year on all metrics.... which means CX is now bigger than SQ on all continents except Australia and only because QF and the Aussie govt won't allow expansion)

CX is a business and not a vanity project and has to and has always responded to the market.
HKG is a premium market more so than SIN. yet every route CX and SQ compete on CX has greater market share.

Kashmon wrote:

this idea that SQ is more premium or SQ is doing well is hilarious ( CX will surpass SQ to Europe next year on all metrics.... which means CX is now bigger than SQ on all continents except Australia and only because QF and the Aussie govt won't allow expansion)

Well that is not true. It was the Hong Kong government that showed very little interest in expanding the HKG-AU bilateral. Furthermore bilaterals are discussed between governments not between airlines and as such QF had no involvement what so ever

http://australianaviation.com.au/2016/0 ... agreement/

Kashmon wrote:

SQ's financial results disagree with you.

Adding a new airline to take away passengers from your main airline is competition and it is silly as it does not address the cost issues in the legacy business- QF gets away with it because Australia has and always will be a virtual one airline monopoly and the Aussie government is in bed with QF. QF would be making more revenue if all those Jetstar flights were QF flights, also QF only recently started making money and that is when they decided to basically HALT JQ growth and go back to growing and sorting QF's issues out

Does KA fly their A320's long haul?!!
also KA A320's almost all of them have USB ports and power sockets
MI is no better than Air India- AI actually has better food.

SQ has long haul aircraft without power sockets.... not a very premium offer. Budget airlines are superior to SQ.
not to mention SQ uses lie flat business class on some 8 hour flights, all flights over 5 hours get full flat beds on CX
your assertion is completely wrong

CX faces more competition than SQ- more airlines and more flights to HKG than Changi yet has retained more of its market share compared to the miserly 35% SQ has at Changi ( I know it is hard for Singapore to admit HKG is way more important)

this idea that SQ is more premium or SQ is doing well is hilarious ( CX will surpass SQ to Europe next year on all metrics.... which means CX is now bigger than SQ on all continents except Australia and only because QF and the Aussie govt won't allow expansion)

CX is a business and not a vanity project and has to and has always responded to the market.
HKG is a premium market more so than SIN. yet every route CX and SQ compete on CX has greater market share.

According to the latest SQ's financial results for the half year ending 30 Sep 2017, both the SQ Group and SQ mainline are making profits.

As for CX, the latest one ending June shows a loss.

These are available online. Just spend some effort searching it instead of spreading lies.

So many red flags, I don't know where to start!

Also, aren't you a CX employee?

Kashmon wrote:

SQ's financial results disagree with you.

SQ: profit
https://www.singaporeair.com/saar5/pdf/ ... fy1617.pdf

CX: big loss
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cath ... SKCN1AW183

Kashmon wrote:

Adding a new airline to take away passengers from your main airline is competition and it is silly as it does not address the cost issues in the legacy business- QF gets away with it because Australia has and always will be a virtual one airline monopoly and the Aussie government is in bed with QF

No you're completely wrong there. The new airline allows the company to be competitive against rivals that it wouldn't otherwise be competitive with. Qantas wouldn't be able to properly compete with DJ if it wasn't for JQ. Same with Tigerair. Qantas will never be able to compete directly with LCCs, so Jetstar is vital.

Scoot can compete with Air Asia, Lion, Cebu Pacific, Citilink and Jetstar Asia, whilst Singapore Air can focus on competing with ANA, Cathay Pacific, Qantas, Lufthansa, BA, United, MAB, Thai etc

Kashmon wrote:

QF would be making more revenue if all those Jetstar flights were QF flights,

Except that basic economics tells us that this is not the case. If you think that all JQ passengers could afford a QF fare on the same route.....then I've got an HK based Jetstar franchise to sell you. The fact is that most of the passenger growth in the aviation industry comes from the Low Cost Carriers and that most LCCs make better margins than Legacy Carriers. Smart Legacy Carriers will position themselves to adapt to this. The Qantas Group did this years ago. SIA Group more recently, IAG/Iberia too AFKL to a lesser extent. Lufthansa is currently going through that process and I'm sure that we will see plenty of other airlines do so as well.

Low-cost carriers carried 984 million passengers in 2015, which was 28 per cent of the world total scheduled passengers. This marked a 10 per cent increase compared to 2014, which means Low-Cost Carriers experienced a passenger growth rate that was about one and a half times the rate of the world total average passenger growth.

https://www.icao.int/sustainability/Pag ... riers.aspx

Kashmon wrote:

also QF only recently started making money and that is when they decided to basically HALT JQ growth and go back to growing and sorting QF's issues out

Qantas has been profitable for the last four years and sorting out the airline's cost issues has been an ongoing process for several years.

Kashmon wrote:

Does KA fly their A320's long haul?!!

How is that relevant?

Kashmon wrote:

also KA A320's almost all of them have USB ports and power sockets

But not all of them?

Kashmon wrote:

SQ has long haul aircraft without power sockets.... not a very premium offer.

Which long haul routes do they fly without power sockets? Did CX's A340-300s have power sockets?

Kashmon wrote:

Budget airlines are superior to SQ.

Well, I guess you've showed your bias there.

Kashmon wrote:

not to mention SQ uses lie flat business class on some 8 hour flights, all flights over 5 hours get full flat beds on CX

Which 8 hour flights? Do they all get ful flat beds on KA?

Kashmon wrote:

CX faces more competition than SQ

Does it? SQ faces much more competition from the ME3 - very critical for the Kangaroo route.

Looking at direct flights on a random date in FEB...

For SIN im seeing:
EK - 3x777s (EK432, EK348 & EK352) and 2x A380s (EK354 & EK404)
EY - 1x789 (EY470)
QR - 3x359 (QR942, QR0944 &QR946)

For HKG im seeing:
EK - 2xA380s (EK380 & EK382) 1x 777 (EK386)
EY - 1xA332 (EY834)
QR - 2x359 (QR816 & QR818)

Kashmon wrote:

CX is a business and not a vanity project and has to and has always responded to the market.

[/quote]
SIA is a business, which is why they responded to the market by launching Scoot.

Channex757 wrote:

Arion640 wrote:

frigatebird wrote:

BA could be a candidate for 3 of CX' 77W, as replacement for their non-ER 772s. Although other sources say BA could source these from LATAM.

So, A350s will effectively replace some of CX 77W. One of the destinations where this will take place is AMS, which will see the A35G later this year according tomthe same source (I assume this is an internal CX code for the A350-900). Too bad, I was hoping AMS would see the CX A350-1000.... perhaps later.

I heard down the grapevine that the 772A's could potentially end up at Gatwick to launch new routes and use up the new Monarch slots.

Very unlikely, the BA 772A aircraft are in a high-J config and would need a lot of money spent on the interiors to Gatwick them.

You've got to do something to fill the slots - plus the fact the current gatters fleet will be out of action at refit. Plus it's cheaper to reconfigure the 77A's rather than lease new aircraft rip out the interior and do the same thing you was going to do anyway.

raylee67 wrote:

I think it is wrong to assume that CX will keep charging a premium price for Economy after they move to 10-abreast.

Moving to 10-abreast will allow CX a lot more flexibility in their pricing competitiveness. I remember that after Air Canada moved to 10-abreast on their 77W, they dropped the fare of HKG-YVR by 20% immediately. That kills the demand for Economy Class on CX. Honestly, except for people in this forum, most people traveling on Economy Class don't understand there is a 9-abreast 777 config and a 10-abreast config. All my friends and colleagues travel a lot within Asia and across the Pacific, and NONE of them realized the planes were used to be 9-abreast. They just go for the cheapest fare. Among my friends who travel between Hong Kong and Canada regularly, I am the only one flying CX now, after AC reconfigured to 10-abreast, because now AC is much cheaper. They now all fly AC. They don't like the service, but they just keep buying AC tickets.

CX just needs to make sure it can pack its Economy cabin, so it needs to be competitive in pricing. I don't like 10-abreast 777, but I think CX is making the right choice for the business.

I agree with this but I think as J gets better and Y gets worse due to market demands, the demand for true premium economy will keep growing. I think we'll see W cabins start to grow.

qf789 wrote:

Well that is not true. It was the Hong Kong government that showed very little interest in expanding the HKG-AU bilateral.

Australia and HKG are in the process of free trade discussions, expect a similar agreement between the two as you have between Australia and mainland China within the next 6 months with air traffic bi-laterals to follow.

A possibility of this process is for Australian carriers to have unlimited beyond rights from Hong Kong, and Hong Kong carriers unlimited beyond rights from Australia.

raylee67 wrote:

I think it is wrong to assume that CX will keep charging a premium price for Economy after they move to 10-abreast.

Moving to 10-abreast will allow CX a lot more flexibility in their pricing competitiveness. I remember that after Air Canada moved to 10-abreast on their 77W, they dropped the fare of HKG-YVR by 20% immediately. That kills the demand for Economy Class on CX. Honestly, except for people in this forum, most people traveling on Economy Class don't understand there is a 9-abreast 777 config and a 10-abreast config. All my friends and colleagues travel a lot within Asia and across the Pacific, and NONE of them realized the planes were used to be 9-abreast. They just go for the cheapest fare. Among my friends who travel between Hong Kong and Canada regularly, I am the only one flying CX now, after AC reconfigured to 10-abreast, because now AC is much cheaper. They now all fly AC. They don't like the service, but they just keep buying AC tickets.

CX just needs to make sure it can pack its Economy cabin, so it needs to be competitive in pricing. I don't like 10-abreast 777, but I think CX is making the right choice for the business.

Seems CX is going to route to make premium market much better, while packing the Y section like a sardine can. Recently seems like CX services are going downhill, at least for economy. I have heard more complains like the attitude of the staffs are bad, the food is getting worse, the seats are getting tighter and uncomfortable, IFE not working, etc. So basically other than if the hours work better for you, there's no more reason to pay more and fly CX while there are more competitions with expanding markets.

The 10-abreast 777 is probably ok for an hour or two flight (HKG - TPE), but not much more than that.

zkojq wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

KA is even better than CX on regional flights...

KA is good, no arguments there.

zkojq wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

at least CX has power points on every single aircraft , can SQ keep with with the times? most people have laptops/devices

Do KA's old A320s/A321s have power points?

Yes, they do! KA has installed new seats in the A320s and A321s and they all have power outlets (this is from my personal experience, not from hear-say).

The typo of 19 across has me amused.

aemoreira1981 wrote:

GE90man wrote:

Wow, CX is surely retiring their 77Ws very quickly. If i recall correctly, the oldest ones have only been around for a little over 10 years

Sale-leasebacks and leases are expiring.

That should be emphasized. CX, SQ, and EK were early on the sale/leaseback trend. The early 77Ws would have terms we would now consider favorable to the airlines.

Right now there is a surplus of available new widebodies. This means that airlines that can get out of old leases should upgrade to new designs or even new 777s.

Lightsaber

This never-ending CX vs SQ debate is tiring. Both are premium carriers facing stiff competitions. ME3 are just one group of competitors, the Chinese big three (C3) is another group that, especially for CX, eating up the margin. In some ways, the C3 is even worse than ME3. ME3 compete well on premium traffic, the C3 compete from the low end, flooding the market with too much capacity, especially to North America. On the low end, SQ has all those SE Asian low cost carriers to compete with; CX has the C3. Airlines like CX and SQ have to lower cost to compete on the low end. SQ has the low cost carriers; CX has to put more seats in economy in their 777's to compete. On high end, both CX and SQ has to create value proposition for premium traffic to stay with them instead of going elsewhere like ME3. CX is opening more non-stop long haul flights so that HKG hub is enhanced and create more frequencies to offer premium passengers more choices on when to fly. SQ is doing more or less the same by making North America non-stop to SIN. This is not the glorious 1990s any more for both carriers. The landscape is changing constantly, and both have to evolve to meet new challenges.

One last note, I flew for the first time in a 77W with 10-abreast on Etihad recently (ORD-AUH), and I found it acceptable. It's like flying the old 744 economy, but it is certainly worse than 9-abreast. I think CX will start installing 10-abreast in regional fleet first. We may not see changes to 77Ws til next year. You got to remember there's a up front cost to put in new seats. If they're going to remove or retire 77Ws from their fleet, there's no point of swapping the econ seats with new ones. I sense that the A350's are replacing some 77Ws, and those 77Ws remaining in the fleet will move to regional flying, and these are the ones will get 10-abreast econ seats.