The populist view of a LCC is a "no-frills" airline.... peanuts, limited customer service and these savings magically allow a 5 quid airfare and bumper profits.
I think a more serious definition of a LCC is a carrier that flys between 2 big (enough) population centres, probably already served by a carrier. The LCC gains a comparative advantage over the established carrier by operating on a lower cost by using secondary airports with a greater aircraft utilization and it would seem, although vehemented denied, receiving "inducements" from local governments and businesses to use that secondary airport.
Applying the LCC model to HK is difficult because there is no viable secondary airport to many of the region's main population centres.... HK, SIN, TPE.... Equally, CX is not bad at aircraft utilization. As for staff costs; apart from us overpaid expats
, the staff costs must be fairly competitive by global standards.
I really do not buy into the argument that bumper profits will come by CX rebranding a few aircraft with gawdy advertisements and have minimal F/As chucking out peanuts, all funded by 150 HKD100 airfares.... the maths just don't add up....