PDA

View Full Version : Six new 747-400ERFs on the way


akerosid
22nd Jun 2006, 11:24
Cathay has announced today that it has ordered six new -400ER freighters, for delivery beginning in 2008.

On the subject of -400 (or indeed -200) freighter ops, does anyone know if CX has minimum standards in relation to the airports/runways it operates from - obviously apart from having sufficient traffic to justify a 747F service?

Dublin has a runway of 8,650' and while there is a new runway due to be operational - in 2012 (!), there's little or no interest in extending the current runway. Presumably if CX is ordering -ERFs, it's going to be particularly interested in ensuring that runways at new destinations are capable of supporting longer nonstop flights. HKG would clearly be a superb cargo destination ex-DUB, but I'm thinking that the runway length would probably rule it out. Any thoughts?

6feetunder
22nd Jun 2006, 11:43
What was it that clown Clemmow said? "....there's no money in freight."

Yeah right!

HotDog
22nd Jun 2006, 12:19
It wasn't Clemmow, the original statement was made by Sir John Bremridge (RIP).

sisyphos
22nd Jun 2006, 13:46
where did you get that information from pls ?

what is going on regarding that new freight joint venture with air china in shanghai ? the ac order could be for them...

404 Titan
22nd Jun 2006, 15:19
22 June 2006

Cathay Press Release. (http://www.cathaypacific.com/intl/aboutcx/press/0,,31342-141548,00.html)

Cathay Pacific makes biggest ever order for freighter fleet expansion

Cathay Pacific Airways today made its biggest ever commitment for new freighter aircraft with an order for six Boeing 747-400ERF, Extended Range Freighters, as it continues to invest in additional cargo capacity to meet aggressive growth plans for the Hong Kong hub.

The six new aircraft are scheduled to arrive between May 2008 and April 2009. Cathay Pacific currently operates 97 aircraft, 14 of which are freighters, including one 747-400BCF, Boeing Converted Freighters, six 747-400 and seven 747-200 freighters. In 1997, there were just six freighters in the airline. This latest investment, together with an outstanding order of five 747-400BCFs, will further expand Cathay Pacific’s freighter fleet.

Cathay Pacific Chief Executive Philip Chen said: "This latest investment further underscores our long-term commitment to invest in Hong Kong, and is an expression of our confidence in Hong Kong as the premier aviation hub in the Asia Pacific region. Cargo is a major contributor to our continued growth, and we are committed to expanding our freighter fleet to ensure it plays a key role in the future of both Cathay Pacific and Hong Kong as a leading cargo hub."

The 747-400ERF has a maximum payload of 248,600 pounds (112,760 kg) and can carry 22,000 pounds (9,980 kg) more than other 747-400 freighters on long-range flights at maximum takeoff weight. It has a maximum range of 9,200 km, about 525 km farther than other 747-400 freighters, and has a strengthened fuselage, landing gear and parts of its wing, along with new, larger tyres.

The new aircraft will be powered by Pratt & Whitney PW4062A engines and deployed on trunk routes to North America to take full advantage of their superior payload range capability.

The airline took delivery of the world’s first 747-400BCF in December last year. A second is due next month and a third in September this year. Three more will enter service in 2007. The airline has retained its options on a further six 747-400BCFs which are now scheduled for delivery from the end of 2008 to 2010.

Cathay Pacific last month added the 28th online freighter destination to its network with the launch of a new twice-weekly service to Chennai, India. More new freighter destinations services to Stockholm and Toronto are due to be launched later this year as part of the airline’s plan to build its network, thereby strengthening Hong Kong’s hub position.

787FOCAL
22nd Jun 2006, 17:51
No RR power.

spannersatcx
22nd Jun 2006, 18:09
Dublin via Manchester I heard.

mayday911
22nd Jun 2006, 18:51
No RR power.

According to the Boeing site, RR power is not an option for the -400ERF.

Mayday

cpdude
22nd Jun 2006, 19:39
No RR power.

Not enough power!

bigbeerbelly
22nd Jun 2006, 19:59
More likely, politics. I read an article a while back about Boeing requiring engine makers to share in the expense/risk of aircraft manufacturing. RR was the only engine maker to say, no. Hence, the 787 is powered by GEs. Might be the same with the 744ERFs.

BBB

Glass Half Empty
22nd Jun 2006, 21:42
what is the main export via air from DUB - Guinness?

cpdude
22nd Jun 2006, 23:17
More likely, politics. I read an article a while back about Boeing requiring engine makers to share in the expense/risk of aircraft manufacturing. RR was the only engine maker to say, no. Hence, the 787 is powered by GEs. Might be the same with the 744ERFs.
BBB
Yes, politics on the 787 as they didn't want to play by Boeing's rules but the RB211 just can't produce the power the ER requires with the extra weight.

The ER engines are the PW which produces 63,300lbs and the GE which is 62,100lbs. The RR is only available on the -400 with a max TOW of 396,890 because it is limited to 59,500lbs. This is the same engine used on the -100/200 with only 50,100lbs where as the GE and PW were completely different cores.

404 Titan
23rd Jun 2006, 00:10
bigbeerbelly & cpdude

More likely, politics. I read an article a while back about Boeing requiring engine makers to share in the expense/risk of aircraft manufacturing. RR was the only engine maker to say, no. Hence, the 787 is powered by GEs. Might be the same with the 744ERFs.

Actually the 787 is available with both GE and RR engines. I also remember reading somewhere that an airframe can be changed from being powered by one engine manufacturer to another in a matter of hours not weeks as is now the case with current aircraft design. It is meant to appeal to leasing companies that can quickly change an engine spec on an airframe to suit a new leasing requirement.


The engines on offer for the B787 are:

Trent 1000 or GEnx

Boeing 787 Dreamliner Suppliers (http://newairplane.com/en-US/787Dreamliner/Suppliers.htm)

Sqwak7700
23rd Jun 2006, 00:53
I think Cathay are also starting to see the light on the subject of engines. Less moving parts, less maintenance. It's as simple as that.

They are starting to get some experience on the the 3 PW aircraft on line now. I think the reason they were originally so hot for the RB-211 was that it was british made. With the cultural landscape at CX changing rapidly, I think costs, not politics, are now the main factor in deciding which powerplant to choose. :D

I flew the PW aircraft, and I gotta say, they are quietter, smoother, and a bit slicker. They also start better with no pause from fuel introduction to lightoff. Just one continuous N2 and EGT rise. The cabin crew also agreed. They came up to us in BKK and comented that the noise level was much lower and that the aircraft seemed a lot smoother. You can't even hear the engines from the flight deck until you aply TO thrust. Plus, as soon as the brake is released, the aircraft rolls without adding thrust. Although, that is probably due to the Idle setting as opposed to having more thrust. With 3 spools, the rollers probably idle at a lower, more fuel efficient setting (they have to sustain combustion with the much smaller N3 spinning as opposed to the bigger N2 spool on the Pratt.)

Back to the subject, I guess this confirms that rumor that CX had reserved the last few slots on the 400F line? I wonder if the fact that the Advanced is coming lowered the price on the 400F to entice CX to purchase them.

Since the deliveries are later on in 2008, I hope they end up changing them to Advanced 748 versions. :ok:

On a side note, I think I saw in some manual that the Roller's thrust is closer to 62K. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a result from the G/H T core upgrade?? I believe the straight RB-211 524G is lower thrust, but these are moded engines with an improved core. :confused:

Either way, I hope these aircraft come to CX, not any other carrier. I saw a little tid bit last week about CX helping Dragon Air with their "BCF operation". :confused: I didn't even know Dragon had a BCF operation, not to mention that it needed help. Any Dragon guys care to comment on that? Would love to know if the planned 6 BCFs are going to Dragon, or if they are expecting to order some of their own :confused:

404 Titan
23rd Jun 2006, 01:02
Sqwak7700

Dragon has a separate order for B744BCF than Cathay. There is also a recruitment ban in place by the Dragon Air Pilots Union in regards to the crap conditions on offer for flight crew on these new aircraft.

Aussie
23rd Jun 2006, 03:30
Anyone know what there intention is with the 747 classics?

Aussie

cpdude
23rd Jun 2006, 04:04
On a side note, I think I saw in some manual that the Roller's thrust is closer to 62K. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that a result from the G/H T core upgrade?? I believe the straight RB-211 524G is lower thrust, but these are moded engines with an improved core. :confused:

I wonder if you were reading the Trent 500 manual which the Airbus 600 has. They are max rated at 62,000lbs. I do have to ammend my 59,500lbs statement as I found an article stating 60,600lbs for the 524H-T.

Also, the evolution engine the Trent 600 which is derived from the 524L is rated from 68,000-72,000lbs but I don't believe anyone has ordered it but I could be wrong here.

787FOCAL
23rd Jun 2006, 05:47
Hmmmm. The RR, at longest ranges, has the best SFC. Most Brake release power too, but does lapse the fastest. I think it is something else. :ok:

colts19
24th Jun 2006, 21:13
I wonder if you were reading the Trent 500 manual which the Airbus 600 has. They are max rated at 62,000lbs. I do have to ammend my 59,500lbs statement as I found an article stating 60,600lbs for the 524H-T.
Also, the evolution engine the Trent 600 which is derived from the 524L is rated from 68,000-72,000lbs but I don't believe anyone has ordered it but I could be wrong here.
The Trent core' "T", runs with a little cooler EGT's and a tad bit more efficient I believe.:bored:

TruBlu351
25th Jun 2006, 19:09
CX's website "Fact Sheet" also states that there are 5 x 747-400's for delivery over the next 24 months.

Could someone please confirm that these are straight pax 400's? (in addition to the 6 x 400ERF's and 6 x BCF's).

Are these to replace the ones going under the knife for BCF treatment?

Thanks.

Glass Half Empty
26th Jun 2006, 23:06
Or is to replace the Classics in the next few years?

N1 Vibes
1st Jul 2006, 07:27
Glass Half Empty and Aussie,

the word is that they all to be towed off to parking bay B1N by about 2011, first a/c to go during 2008 I think. The Yanks have a hard-on for the CF6 powered a/c, as for the RR powered not sure.

There was another rumour that Evergreen had offered Cathay full price for all the classics, although no more has been heard on this.

Best regards,

N1 Vibes

787FOCAL
1st Jul 2006, 14:34
There is a reason why there is no RR power on the 910k 744ERF. Has nothing to do with safety or eficiency. Just could not be certified. :hmm:

N1 Vibes
2nd Jul 2006, 00:48
The main reason the RR is not available on the ERF is because they don't manufacture the 524-T anymore. The RR facility that produces the fan cases, the biggest and most expensive part of the engine, and the one that hopefully never has to be replaced at US$2 million, is now making only Trent items. The 524 is dead.

On the subject of thrust ratings all the CX fleet used to have 524H build standard engines (59,450lbs thrust) that were derated to 524G rating (58,000lbs thrust). Yes, with the -T core the build standard take-off ratings increased to 60,000lbs but CX continue to fly using the G rating right?

As you guy's with exotic motors in Hong Kong will appreciate, you have a car capable of 300kmh but you can only do 120kmh behind a PLB/Taxi/Bicycle. Or in the case of CX 744's you are always stuck behind one of your own A340-300's!:ugh:

787FOCAL
2nd Jul 2006, 02:28
N1 Vibes - I think you should maybe ask HACAN why the RR is not on the ERF. If they do not manufacturer the 524 anymore where are they getting the engines for the RB211 powered 747-400s that Cargolux is taking 2007-2008??? :P

stillalbatross
2nd Jul 2006, 13:14
Or in the case of CX 744's you are always stuck behind one of your own A340-300's!:ugh:

Who's in turn stuck behind a B767 out of BKK doing 0.79........

casual observer
3rd Jul 2006, 02:41
Hmmmm. The RR, at longest ranges, has the best SFC. Most Brake release power too, but does lapse the fastest. I think it is something else. :ok:
Nope. The RR engines on the 747 has the worst SFC and the shortest range.