Bad day for LAX->HKG
Dec 6, 2005, 7:58 pm
#1
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Bad day for LAX->HKG
Might be first time this winter season. All three scheduled 12/5 flights have to refuel somewhere.
881 TPE. Was 3:53 late into HKG.
885 ICN. Was 2:28 late into HKG.
883 ICN. Will be 5:50 late into HKG.
883's really on a roll lately. 11/26-29. Four ICNs in a row. Then 12/3 ICN, 12/4 TPE, 12/5 ICN. That's 7 refuels in 10 days.
Even 873 SFO->HKG visited TPE. Just arrived HKG 1:37 late.
Nasty headwinds.
881 TPE. Was 3:53 late into HKG.
885 ICN. Was 2:28 late into HKG.
883 ICN. Will be 5:50 late into HKG.
883's really on a roll lately. 11/26-29. Four ICNs in a row. Then 12/3 ICN, 12/4 TPE, 12/5 ICN. That's 7 refuels in 10 days.
Even 873 SFO->HKG visited TPE. Just arrived HKG 1:37 late.
Nasty headwinds.
Dec 6, 2005, 8:51 pm
#2
Join Date: May 2005
Location: BKK, TPE, KIX
Programs: CX Diamond, TG ROP Gold, LH Senator, *wood G
Posts: 37
Is no wonder, have you look at weather map lately. I just flew NRT-HKG and it was very bumpy flight. Very very strong winds over Japan all way to HKG flight 3/4 h longer than usual.
Dec 6, 2005, 9:23 pm
#4
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
In my opinion, CX has been getting away with this for too long. Well, at least they've finally ordered the planes that can eliminate these fuel stops. It's embarrasing that when China Southern can fly LAX-CAN non-stop year round, CX's flights are stopping in ICN/TPE too regularly.
Dec 6, 2005, 9:58 pm
#5
Join Date: Jan 2002
Programs: CX MPO GO,AC Aeroplan
Posts: 183
as I remember, Boeing did claim the B744 with RR egines, could fly LAX/HKG with full payload non-stop year-round.but that was 15 years ago...maybe the bad pollution and the global warming has made the winter headwind even stronger. 
Dec 6, 2005, 11:16 pm
#6
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 163
Hmmm, I'm going to fly EWR-HKG soon on CO. I wonder if this is affected. Then again, the bad winds seem to always be around Japan, so I guess I should be ok.
There was one time I flew CX from YVR-HKG... took something like 14 hours, so bad were the winds...
There was one time I flew CX from YVR-HKG... took something like 14 hours, so bad were the winds...
Dec 7, 2005, 12:41 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Little dot in Asia
Programs: AA-EP, TK-*G, HL-DM, HY-GLO, MR-LTP
Posts: 25,932
Well, there's SQ's A345 aircraft....
When there was a typhoon around the inaugural flight from LAX to SIN 2 years ago, instead of flying the traditional route via Japan, the airline flew south via Hawaii... and clocked up almost 17 hours nonstop.
One of the advantages of 4 engines I guess.
When there was a typhoon around the inaugural flight from LAX to SIN 2 years ago, instead of flying the traditional route via Japan, the airline flew south via Hawaii... and clocked up almost 17 hours nonstop.
One of the advantages of 4 engines I guess.
Dec 7, 2005, 10:04 am
#8
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Beaverton OR
Programs: GE, AA PLT/2.6MM, BR Gld, Royal Carib. DM+, Celebrity Elite, NCL PLT, Princess Elite
Posts: 1,643
Since this year I've had a few of these diversions...
CX tries to fit on as much cargo as possible, since they make a lot of money carrying cargo; apparently this offsets the costs of the diversion and reacommodating passengers once they get to HKG. I'm trying to fly my westbound transpacifics out of SFO now since the chance of diversion is much less (plust using the BA lounge helps ^ ).
CX tries to fit on as much cargo as possible, since they make a lot of money carrying cargo; apparently this offsets the costs of the diversion and reacommodating passengers once they get to HKG. I'm trying to fly my westbound transpacifics out of SFO now since the chance of diversion is much less (plust using the BA lounge helps ^ ).
Dec 7, 2005, 10:30 am
#9
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Originally Posted by MarshalN
Hmmm, I'm going to fly EWR-HKG soon on CO. I wonder if this is affected. Then again, the bad winds seem to always be around Japan, so I guess I should be ok.
There was one time I flew CX from YVR-HKG... took something like 14 hours, so bad were the winds...
There was one time I flew CX from YVR-HKG... took something like 14 hours, so bad were the winds...
Dec 7, 2005, 12:15 pm
#10
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
Maybe some CX guru can answer this question:
Now, I know about heavy cargoes - I was on a NW 744 flight that has to stop in ANC for DTW-SEL. But why it's always 883 that get the poor treatment? 881 made 2 fuel stops in the last 10 days. 883, which leaves LAX about an hour earlier, made 8 fuel stops in the last 11. [Yes, ICN again last night.] Do CX just think that passengers don't really need to get to HKG that early in the morning anyways, so they just put more cargo on 883 every day?
And perhaps the rationale is - Hey, would you rather sit at TBIT for another hour or two for 881 than sit on a 744 at ICN/TPE for that extra time?
Now, I know about heavy cargoes - I was on a NW 744 flight that has to stop in ANC for DTW-SEL. But why it's always 883 that get the poor treatment? 881 made 2 fuel stops in the last 10 days. 883, which leaves LAX about an hour earlier, made 8 fuel stops in the last 11. [Yes, ICN again last night.] Do CX just think that passengers don't really need to get to HKG that early in the morning anyways, so they just put more cargo on 883 every day?
And perhaps the rationale is - Hey, would you rather sit at TBIT for another hour or two for 881 than sit on a 744 at ICN/TPE for that extra time?
Dec 7, 2005, 9:04 pm
#12
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London
Programs: GGL/GFL
Posts: 1,032
Originally Posted by rkkwan
But why it's always 883 that get the poor treatment? 881 made 2 fuel stops in the last 10 days. 883, which leaves LAX about an hour earlier, made 8 fuel stops in the last 11. [Yes, ICN again last night.] Do CX just think that passengers don't really need to get to HKG that early in the morning anyways, so they just put more cargo on 883 every day?
Here is an old thread that discusses this:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...&highlight=LAX
Basically even with a diversion, 883 can usually still get in to make the morning bank of connections to SE Asia, while diverting 881 would misconnect.
Dec 7, 2005, 9:13 pm
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Original Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: HKG
Programs: Priority Club Plat
Posts: 12,311
studio76 - Thanks for digging up that thread. Interesting that it was started exactly a year ago, also in early December. Well, until the 773ER arrive, I guess someone will be discussing this again.
Dec 7, 2005, 11:26 pm
#14
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Beaverton OR
Programs: GE, AA PLT/2.6MM, BR Gld, Royal Carib. DM+, Celebrity Elite, NCL PLT, Princess Elite
Posts: 1,643
Originally Posted by studio76
Basically even with a diversion, 883 can usually still get in to make the morning bank of connections to SE Asia, while diverting 881 would misconnect.
If 883 diverts to TPE, yes the connections are preserved except for the first MNL departure (and sometimes those are doable, but it not there is another one less than an hour later). TPE adds about an hour and a half to the flight time - the staff at TPE are fantastic about turning the aircraft.
If 883 diverts to ICN, most of the connections are blown, it adds 3.5 to 4 hours to the flight.
Dec 8, 2005, 7:25 am
#15
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: CGK
Programs: SQ TPP28, CX DM, DL P, GA CB, WOH LGLOB, HH D, MB G, Hertz P
Posts: 2,884
I am guessing that pax with ICN and TPE as their final destinations would have to still board their flight to HKG from the diversion points and fly back? 