Routing HKG/Korea
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Routing HKG/Korea
A question which I am sure someone from CX can answer for me.
I have flown many times from HKG to Korea (both Incheon and Gimpo) as SLF, and nearly always on CX.
The route taken by CX out of HKG goes over Taiwan, then gently curves left following the coast of China until reaching the southern part of S. Korea, then goes north up Korea. Retaurn ny reverse route.
Recently, I got shifted to a Korean Airways flight back from Incheon, which followed a very different route, going over Shanghai, and then curving inland over China. The route looked almost like a gentle reverse S on its side, or maybe the great circle route.
Any particular reason for this? Is there any restriction on CX going over China?
Just Curious.
[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: StickyB ]
I have flown many times from HKG to Korea (both Incheon and Gimpo) as SLF, and nearly always on CX.
The route taken by CX out of HKG goes over Taiwan, then gently curves left following the coast of China until reaching the southern part of S. Korea, then goes north up Korea. Retaurn ny reverse route.
Recently, I got shifted to a Korean Airways flight back from Incheon, which followed a very different route, going over Shanghai, and then curving inland over China. The route looked almost like a gentle reverse S on its side, or maybe the great circle route.
Any particular reason for this? Is there any restriction on CX going over China?
Just Curious.
[ 09 October 2001: Message edited by: StickyB ]
Sticky
You're right about CX - travelled to ICN five times over the last couple of months and with very similar routing over Taiwan.
Travelled with OZ last week (due horrendous fare difference between CX and OZ as I was only staying 2 nights) and was routed similar to KE over China.
Must be a reason I guess.
What's this with CX fare being twice that of OZ on this route - doesn't make sense to me.
Second time on OZ by the way and very acceptable.
Best
HA
You're right about CX - travelled to ICN five times over the last couple of months and with very similar routing over Taiwan.
Travelled with OZ last week (due horrendous fare difference between CX and OZ as I was only staying 2 nights) and was routed similar to KE over China.
Must be a reason I guess.
What's this with CX fare being twice that of OZ on this route - doesn't make sense to me.
Second time on OZ by the way and very acceptable.
Best
HA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: asia
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HA, thanks for the input.
Certainly the CX fare is very expensive unless you stay 3 nights, then becomes cheaper (much)
Haven't flown OZ, what's it like compared to CX? Which class were u in?
Certainly I didn't like KE, not as comfortable down the back as CX.
Cheers
StickyB
Certainly the CX fare is very expensive unless you stay 3 nights, then becomes cheaper (much)
Haven't flown OZ, what's it like compared to CX? Which class were u in?
Certainly I didn't like KE, not as comfortable down the back as CX.
Cheers
StickyB
Hi Sticky
I was in Y (only 3 hours or so!) and although the ships (B767) are a little older than CXs, I try to get hold of the overwing exit row where there is a little more legroom. Comfortable enough and the meal was comparable to CX. All in all I have had no reason to grizzle with OZ. I was doing work for OZ in Seoul so I guess it was appropriate to travel with them
I was told that some fares to Seoul with CX are kept artificially high for some reason but I cannot understand it. The loads on my previous excursions with CX on the ICN route were not that high in either direction.
As much as I prefer to patronise CX, I can't justify the extra (HK4K) on a short trip even though my company foot the bill. I'm sure I am not alone.
Best!
HA
edited for grammar!
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: HandyAndy ]
I was in Y (only 3 hours or so!) and although the ships (B767) are a little older than CXs, I try to get hold of the overwing exit row where there is a little more legroom. Comfortable enough and the meal was comparable to CX. All in all I have had no reason to grizzle with OZ. I was doing work for OZ in Seoul so I guess it was appropriate to travel with them
I was told that some fares to Seoul with CX are kept artificially high for some reason but I cannot understand it. The loads on my previous excursions with CX on the ICN route were not that high in either direction.
As much as I prefer to patronise CX, I can't justify the extra (HK4K) on a short trip even though my company foot the bill. I'm sure I am not alone.
Best!
HA
edited for grammar!
[ 10 October 2001: Message edited by: HandyAndy ]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turtle,
I agree the nav charges are higher; but I disagree with yr statement about 'all NDB' kind of stuff. If you have flown China over the past few years, you would know that full radar services is now provided.
Nav charges are fixed quite arbitraly by the local ATC authority. Iranian is the most expensive of all.
I agree the nav charges are higher; but I disagree with yr statement about 'all NDB' kind of stuff. If you have flown China over the past few years, you would know that full radar services is now provided.
Nav charges are fixed quite arbitraly by the local ATC authority. Iranian is the most expensive of all.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last flight over China was last spring. We were always under radar surveillance, but still had to give position reports over endless NDB's that never pointed to anything. Add the metric FL's which the Chicoms and Russians can't agree on, well, I'd rather stay over the water.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Turtle,
I am suprised by the differential treatment in China. When I flew over China, I have always been given 'omit position report' or 'report xxx' where xxx is the FIR boundary. Apart from the regular scheduled pax services, I also did one charter flight over-flying China, same treatment I got. It was full radar service all the way. We followed the planned route, make calls over FIR boundaries, but otherwise never had to make position reports. It has been about 2 years now.
Before that, we had to make position report every waypoints. But not anymore. Time have changed.
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Old Dog ]
I am suprised by the differential treatment in China. When I flew over China, I have always been given 'omit position report' or 'report xxx' where xxx is the FIR boundary. Apart from the regular scheduled pax services, I also did one charter flight over-flying China, same treatment I got. It was full radar service all the way. We followed the planned route, make calls over FIR boundaries, but otherwise never had to make position reports. It has been about 2 years now.
Before that, we had to make position report every waypoints. But not anymore. Time have changed.
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Old Dog ]
