9w748capt wrote:

Also not sure why so much focus on India. That must not be the target market here otherwise presumably CX would've timed rhe flights accordingly. You can say the same about CX807 from ORD, that it's not timed appropriately for India connections (although CX806 is). And last I checked, Chicago-India is a larger market than Seattle-India.

Congrats to CX - frankly I'm surprised they ignored SEA for so long.

9w748capt wrote:

Not to mention CX's propensity to maintain sauna-like temperatures even in the premium cabins. Sounds like you caught CX on a bad day - we've thankfully never experienced anything like that.

CHCalfonzo wrote:

SEA 4x per week it is, A350-900 operating

Dieuwer wrote:

Slightly off topic: But do other people find CX J service lacking? Last time I flew the crew forgot to distribute menus, then they forgot to ask half of the cabin what they wanted. People were sitting with their menus on their laps for ages. Then they forgot to collect the menus, and forgot the bring part of the dishes! It was EXTREMELY disorganized.
I got the impression that the crew was not properly trained and was completely over their heads with work.

zakuivcustom wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

SLC, AUS, DEN? I think some if you have lost your minds!

Can you actually read the original story before making a stupid comment? CX is the one that actually have those cities on the list (ok, crossword).

Dieuwer wrote:

Major blow to Delta.

DL is ending SEA-HKG, and I almost want to say that it's a reason why CX decided to start SEA-HKG now rather than later.

Otherwise, zero surprises that it's SEA. Nice to see SEA getting a non-stop to HKG back right after DL decided to axed that.

For the flight time - it connects good to SE Asia (to the morning 8-9am departure "bank" at HKG and the 9-10pm arrival "bank"), but definitely awful timing for Indian connection. Definitely a wasted oppotunity there. Not a ton of connection oppotunities at SEA, either (2100 arrival mean 2300 flight earliest), so I'm assuming that the main target is SEA-HKG-xxx traffic (along with SEA-HKG O&D).

izbtmnhd wrote:

Future routes based of off a crossword that is clearly getting the airline some pub? For this, my comment is stupid? Who really thinks CX is going to do SLC-HKG? A.net cracks me up!

MastaHanky wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Future routes based of off a crossword that is clearly getting the airline some pub? For this, my comment is stupid? Who really thinks CX is going to do SLC-HKG? A.net cracks me up!

Oh come on now, I’m sure CX wants to corner the 17 PDEW of SLC-HKG.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Future routes based of off a crossword that is clearly getting the airline some pub? For this, my comment is stupid? Who really thinks CX is going to do SLC-HKG? A.net cracks me up!

zakuivcustom wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Future routes based of off a crossword that is clearly getting the airline some pub? For this, my comment is stupid? Who really thinks CX is going to do SLC-HKG? A.net cracks me up!

I guess I just misunderstood your original comment. All I try to say is that, there are cases on a.net where people just throw out random airports (AUS, MIA, etc.) every single time a TPAC route is about to be announced, just b/c they think there's suppose to be some demand that somehow exist. Then there is this case, where the airline is the one throwing out the teaser of starting AUS, MIA, SLC, etc.

No, personally I highly doubt it's SLC or AUS myself before they announced it's SEA (Which was my guess anyway, just b/c it's so obvious).

LAXdude1023 wrote:

MastaHanky wrote:

Oh come on now, I’m sure CX wants to corner the 17 PDEW of SLC-HKG.

I doubt its that big.

MastaHanky wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

MastaHanky wrote:

Oh come on now, I’m sure CX wants to corner the 17 PDEW of SLC-HKG.

I doubt its that big.

The 2017 numbers I have show 12,356 passengers for the year. Good enough for 2w/CRJ!

MastaHanky wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Future routes based of off a crossword that is clearly getting the airline some pub? For this, my comment is stupid? Who really thinks CX is going to do SLC-HKG? A.net cracks me up!

Oh come on now, I’m sure CX wants to corner the 17 PDEW of SLC-HKG.

Dieuwer wrote:

Slightly off topic: But do other people find CX J service lacking? Last time I flew the crew forgot to distribute menus, then they forgot to ask half of the cabin what they wanted. People were sitting with their menus on their laps for ages. Then they forgot to collect the menus, and forgot the bring part of the dishes! It was EXTREMELY disorganized.
I got the impression that the crew was not properly trained and was completely over their heads with work.

flyinggoat wrote:

If I’m reading between the lines right, it sounds to me like CX will be starting flights to SEA on April 1st.

MIA sounds feasible as well. Maybe a tag on to SEA, but maybe a direct flight as well.

That’s my guess.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Except it will mostly visit Seattle in the dark so not the best for spotting.

skyharborshome wrote:

Dieuwer wrote:

Slightly off topic: But do other people find CX J service lacking? Last time I flew the crew forgot to distribute menus, then they forgot to ask half of the cabin what they wanted. People were sitting with their menus on their laps for ages. Then they forgot to collect the menus, and forgot the bring part of the dishes! It was EXTREMELY disorganized.
I got the impression that the crew was not properly trained and was completely over their heads with work.

One of my best friends is crew for them and when I hang with a group on layovers they constantly show concern that costs are being cut and customer service is declining as a result. They also hate the A359 galleys which has been mentioned in several threads already. CX crew that I know work hard and love their jobs. The same individuals worry that decisions are being made that is not helping the cause.

raylee67 wrote:

The timing of the flight is another surprise. It seems that CX is not going to utilize the AS relationship in full. The flight arrives at SEA so late that there is no chance of connecting onwards. But the timing would allow full connection opportunities at HKG on both direction. CX would actually be able to catch connection at both ends if it adjusts the flight to arrive at SEA at around 10am and depart at around 12pm, instead of arriving SEA at 10pm and leaving at 12am. It probably chooses the current schedule thinking there is no much to connect to even with AS in full force at SEA. AS must be disappointed.

winginit wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

The timing of the flight is another surprise. It seems that CX is not going to utilize the AS relationship in full. The flight arrives at SEA so late that there is no chance of connecting onwards. But the timing would allow full connection opportunities at HKG on both direction. CX would actually be able to catch connection at both ends if it adjusts the flight to arrive at SEA at around 10am and depart at around 12pm, instead of arriving SEA at 10pm and leaving at 12am. It probably chooses the current schedule thinking there is no much to connect to even with AS in full force at SEA. AS must be disappointed.

This is what has caught my attention as well. I think Delta's failure on this route showed us that the local market expectations were and likely still are a bit overblown, and even that nonstop local traffic has to be tempted by RT J fares that are often up to $2000 cheaper than what was Delta's nonstop (and what will be CX's nonstop) on account of KE/OZ/BR/HU/NH duking it out in a yield bloodbath trying to capture that same traffic over a one-stop.

Sure, the connectivity over HKG is a benefit that DL didn't have, but again it's replicated by all of those existing players mentioned above and comes at the expense of virtually all domestic flows on AS.

Hard to see how this route will be anything but a dog for CX using the assumption that DL was losing quite a bit of money before cancelling unless there's something I'm missing here

winginit wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

The timing of the flight is another surprise. It seems that CX is not going to utilize the AS relationship in full. The flight arrives at SEA so late that there is no chance of connecting onwards. But the timing would allow full connection opportunities at HKG on both direction. CX would actually be able to catch connection at both ends if it adjusts the flight to arrive at SEA at around 10am and depart at around 12pm, instead of arriving SEA at 10pm and leaving at 12am. It probably chooses the current schedule thinking there is no much to connect to even with AS in full force at SEA. AS must be disappointed.

This is what has caught my attention as well. I think Delta's failure on this route showed us that the local market expectations were and likely still are a bit overblown, and even that nonstop local traffic has to be tempted by RT J fares that are often up to $2000 cheaper than what was Delta's nonstop (and what will be CX's nonstop) on account of KE/OZ/BR/HU/NH duking it out in a yield bloodbath trying to capture that same traffic over a one-stop.

Sure, the connectivity over HKG is a benefit that DL didn't have, but again it's replicated by all of those existing players mentioned above and comes at the expense of virtually all domestic flows on AS.

Hard to see how this route will be anything but a dog for CX using the assumption that DL was losing quite a bit of money before cancelling unless there's something I'm missing here

raylee67 wrote:

SEA is long overdue. And that's no surprise. However, a bit surprised that it's only 4 times a week. I guess CX is being cautious and want to test the waters. If it works, it would quickly ramp up to daily, just like what it did with BOS. And it's doing the same with IAD, BRU and DUB.

The timing of the flight is another surprise. It seems that CX is not going to utilize the AS relationship in full. The flight arrives at SEA so late that there is no chance of connecting onwards. But the timing would allow full connection opportunities at HKG on both direction. CX would actually be able to catch connection at both ends if it adjusts the flight to arrive at SEA at around 10am and depart at around 12pm, instead of arriving SEA at 10pm and leaving at 12am. It probably chooses the current schedule thinking there is no much to connect to even with AS in full force at SEA. AS must be disappointed.

tphuang wrote:

I think people that are one world flyers and as ff are all going to really use this service whereas dl has no point of sale in hk and is behind as in Seattle. I think cx will have a better chance of making this work.

winginit wrote:

tphuang wrote:

I think people that are one world flyers and as ff are all going to really use this service whereas dl has no point of sale in hk and is behind as in Seattle. I think cx will have a better chance of making this work.

But is there a oneworld base of flyers in SEA? It's historically been a big white space for AA and while that's changed a little bit with the launch of services like LAXSEA, etc. over the past few years they pale in comparison to what is today a DL hub. Point being, there was without a doubt a larger base of DL and SkyTeam flyers to support the local market when compared to oneworld. Additionally, you've got both AA and CX flights to HKG that are in competition with what will be CX's SEAHKG service out of DFW, LAX, ORD, etc. whereas with DL SEA was the only option.

On top of all of that, this route will be made or broken by costs, and while I don't have have hard numbers in front of me I'm having difficulty believing that even after all of their restructuring that CX has gone through the past few years that their operated CASK is going to be lower than what Delta's was for the route depending on how they factor in aircraft cost of ownership.

I do agree that CX should put their SEA arrival a couple of hours earlier for more available connections.

bzcat wrote:

Does CX really need AS network to make the flight work? The timing suggest CX wants high yield O&D business ex-Seattle, not people connecting on AS to SEA then to HKG. CX has multiple daily day time flights ex-LAX and SFO that are much better for US originating connecting passengers.

Same applies on HKG end. Someone starting in Southeast Asia can connect to almost any US airports from LAX and SFO so no reason for CX to put that person on the SEA flight. But if someone is going from SGN to SEA, CX wants this business... that person is probably currently going SGN-TPE-SEA on BR.

wedgetail737 wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

SEA is long overdue. And that's no surprise. However, a bit surprised that it's only 4 times a week. I guess CX is being cautious and want to test the waters. If it works, it would quickly ramp up to daily, just like what it did with BOS. And it's doing the same with IAD, BRU and DUB.

The timing of the flight is another surprise. It seems that CX is not going to utilize the AS relationship in full. The flight arrives at SEA so late that there is no chance of connecting onwards. But the timing would allow full connection opportunities at HKG on both direction. CX would actually be able to catch connection at both ends if it adjusts the flight to arrive at SEA at around 10am and depart at around 12pm, instead of arriving SEA at 10pm and leaving at 12am. It probably chooses the current schedule thinking there is no much to connect to even with AS in full force at SEA. AS must be disappointed.

That's not exactly true. AS has a late-night bank at around 11PM to several destinations...and possibility some late redeyes eastbound. But I do agree that CX should put their SEA arrival a couple of hours earlier for more available connections.

There are no available gate or ticket counter space during the peak overseas bank between 10am and noon. CX already has a late night flight to HKG out of YVR, so it's not too out of the norm.

BA wrote:

Hopefully it does better than DL. Seattle is a hot market, but I do think Seattle-Asia has become a bit over served.

mdavies06 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

raylee67 wrote:

SEA is long overdue. And that's no surprise. However, a bit surprised that it's only 4 times a week. I guess CX is being cautious and want to test the waters. If it works, it would quickly ramp up to daily, just like what it did with BOS. And it's doing the same with IAD, BRU and DUB.

The timing of the flight is another surprise. It seems that CX is not going to utilize the AS relationship in full. The flight arrives at SEA so late that there is no chance of connecting onwards. But the timing would allow full connection opportunities at HKG on both direction. CX would actually be able to catch connection at both ends if it adjusts the flight to arrive at SEA at around 10am and depart at around 12pm, instead of arriving SEA at 10pm and leaving at 12am. It probably chooses the current schedule thinking there is no much to connect to even with AS in full force at SEA. AS must be disappointed.

That's not exactly true. AS has a late-night bank at around 11PM to several destinations...and possibility some late redeyes eastbound. But I do agree that CX should put their SEA arrival a couple of hours earlier for more available connections.

There are no available gate or ticket counter space during the peak overseas bank between 10am and noon. CX already has a late night flight to HKG out of YVR, so it's not too out of the norm.

CX could shift to a daytime departure when the new FIS building opens for business. CX could do what EK and BR does...arrive fairly and spend more than just a few hours in SEA to maximize connections with AS.

If there is no spare gate or check in counter at SEA between 10am-12pm, then this would explain the timing of the new CX flights. This late morning slot is what CX will need to operate a daytime return. A daytime flight will allow two things to happen which the now published schedule would not (1) allow much broader feed on AS and (2) the daytime return flight into HKG allow convenient connection to an evening departure bank ex-HKG to India/Nepal/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka. The only alternative in lieu of the 10am-12pm is night time flying as per the now published schedule.

This new flight pitches CX against DL/HU/NH/BR, whilst EK/LH/BA (flying SEA-South Asia indirectly) can sleep easy.

bzcat wrote:

Does CX really need AS network to make the flight work? The timing suggest CX wants high yield O&D business ex-Seattle, not people connecting on AS to SEA then to HKG. CX has multiple daily day time flights ex-LAX and SFO that are much better for US originating connecting passengers.

IPFreely wrote:

bzcat wrote:

Does CX really need AS network to make the flight work? The timing suggest CX wants high yield O&D business ex-Seattle, not people connecting on AS to SEA then to HKG. CX has multiple daily day time flights ex-LAX and SFO that are much better for US originating connecting passengers.

Why does it have to be one or the other? I believe CX wants both SEA O&D passengers and passengers connecting to AS flights.

MSPNWA wrote:

I don't have high hopes that this will stick in the long-run, but you knew this was coming once DL pulled out. I see SEA as a teaser market. Big enough for airlines to give it a try, but not enough to go big on it.

wedgetail737 wrote:

BA wrote:

Hopefully it does better than DL. Seattle is a hot market, but I do think Seattle-Asia has become a bit over served.

Europe service is in the same boat...but I digress.

airzona11 wrote:

I wonder what passengers CX is getting / would otherwise be missing gaining AS connections in SEA?

BA wrote:

I've always heard Cathay Pacific's Vancouver flights attract a healthy number of passengers heading to/from Seattle, whether they drive up or fly Alaska/Horizon.

If this is true, this flight will cannibalize a bit of that traffic, but I'm sure CX already factored that in their decision to launch Seattle.

wedgetail737 wrote:

BA wrote:

Hopefully it does better than DL. Seattle is a hot market, but I do think Seattle-Asia has become a bit over served.

Europe service is in the same boat...but I digress.

Based on load factors, I'd say Asia is more over served than Europe is from Seattle.

It's pretty amazing how much new service Seattle continues to gain. This is really really starting to put strains the airport.

texas145 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

They have already hauled freight out of DFW. First time I saw an aircraft with LED wingtip strobes was when I was driving past DFW's Runway 18R and I stopped and watched. Turns out it was a Cathay Airbus A340 landing. Now it seems LED lighting is standard on Airbus's

Close, but no. What you saw wasn't an A340, but a 747-8F. That's what they fly into DFW, especially onto 18R for the CX Freight office.

freakyrat wrote:

texas145 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

They have already hauled freight out of DFW. First time I saw an aircraft with LED wingtip strobes was when I was driving past DFW's Runway 18R and I stopped and watched. Turns out it was a Cathay Airbus A340 landing. Now it seems LED lighting is standard on Airbus's

Close, but no. What you saw wasn't an A340, but a 747-8F. That's what they fly into DFW, especially onto 18R for the CX Freight office.

I know they have the 747-8F at DFW however i stopped under the approach to 18R to watch and it actually was a Cathay A340 which I thought was unusual.

freakyrat wrote:

texas145 wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

They have already hauled freight out of DFW. First time I saw an aircraft with LED wingtip strobes was when I was driving past DFW's Runway 18R and I stopped and watched. Turns out it was a Cathay Airbus A340 landing. Now it seems LED lighting is standard on Airbus's

Close, but no. What you saw wasn't an A340, but a 747-8F. That's what they fly into DFW, especially onto 18R for the CX Freight office.

I know they have the 747-8F at DFW however i stopped under the approach to 18R to watch and it actually was a Cathay A340 which I thought was unusual.

itisi wrote:

freakyrat wrote:

texas145 wrote:

Close, but no. What you saw wasn't an A340, but a 747-8F. That's what they fly into DFW, especially onto 18R for the CX Freight office.

I know they have the 747-8F at DFW however i stopped under the approach to 18R to watch and it actually was a Cathay A340 which I thought was unusual.

What year was this CX A340 you saw?!?!?!