View Full Version : Cathay A380
dragonzinho
22nd Nov 2006, 22:43
This has probably been discussed before to death, but I can't seem to find anything on it...
Just wondering if anyone can shed light on why Cathay has not decided to buy any A380s?
sizematters
22nd Nov 2006, 23:58
Because it is a heap of Crap !!!! It has other undisclosed problems besides the wiring, the fact it can only use 200ft wide runways, is in a "Special" wake turbulence category and won't even do Los Angeles to Hong Kong Direct as it runs out of gas about 30 minutes short.......................something to do with the fact that is has about 50Tons of gas less than it should have due to fore and aft wing bending.............
Cathay got burned with various Airbus products too many times and made the correct decision to sit back, watch and wait to see what happens.........................must be laughing right now??
roll out the new Boeing........................
moosp
23rd Nov 2006, 00:21
The story I heard involved the A380 sales presentation team from Airbus. They arrived in HKG with their Powerpoints and models but before they were allowed to start, Turnbull said, "I've got someone I'd like you to meet."
In walks the engineering director who gave them a full breakdown (apposite word) on the 340-600 operation in CX. When he'd finished, Turnbull pointed out that until Airbus had sorted out the -600, there was no way they would even sniff at the 380.
The team went back to France, and within a few days a very high powered engineering team arrived to help on the -600 reliability problems.
Apparently happened a couple or three years ago
funkymonk
23rd Nov 2006, 04:59
about a year ago someone emailed me pictures of the main gear of the
A380 bent from a tug pulling it to sharply into a turn. Unfortunately I deleated them. Does anyone know where to see those?
FM
Because it is a heap of Crap !!!!
Could I ask what technical basis you have to make that assessment ? Do you have access to the flight testing data ?
Airbus have 26 380s airframes built, granted none delivered due to a almightily production stuff up.
Flight testing has shown it is burning 17% less fuel than a 747-800, more than capable of climbing to FL350 in 30 minutes and doing 16 hour sector with 555 pax. In your terms LAX-HKG with an average headwind of 100 kts with 555 pax.
Tomorrow the final route proving flight should depart TLS before EASA and FAA certification on December 13, 2006. The route is TLS-JNB direct, JNB-SYD direct, SYD-YVR direct, YVR-TLS direct. SYD-YVR is longer than LAX-HKG.
As for runway/taxiway usage I understand the 747-800 and A380 are both ICAO CAT F due to their wing spans.
Apparently happened a couple or three years ago
Sounds to me like a bit of a tall story. Both engine and airframe manufactures have field representative agents embedded in airlines that bear the brunt of problems from the customer airlines on a daily basis. The 346 has settled down after its initial introduction which everyone agrees was ordinary.
Does anyone know where to see those?
I know the ones you were talking about, they were part of destructive testing, it was not a fault with the gear as some people embellished.
The photos are of a successful test where they turn the aircraft beyond the towing limits.
boofta
24th Nov 2006, 01:44
Zeke
Cathay also had an inordinate amount of problems introducing the A330,
lots of engine problems. Once bitten twice shy.
If the Airbus product is so excellent, why is it 2 years late?
Thats an estimated 2 years, it could be more!
I personally don't enjoy being woken in the middle of the night by an-
85 pound cabin attendant walking past my first class seat- this causes
the seat to move from flexing of the adjoining floor structure.
Airbuses are efficient, but the structures are so thin it causes this
phenomena, it does not give me any confidence about Airbuses.
It fact it leads me to believe Airbuses are Rubbish, why the incredible
speed reduction in any turbulence, not to mention the cobblestone
ride in any turbulence.
CMOTDibler
24th Nov 2006, 03:48
Cathay have not dismissed the idea entirely. Talking to a now ex GM (who has recently moved to an Oz basing) he stated that Cathay bought the last 2 A330's for the sole purpose of locking in the launch customer price of the A380 in case they decide to go down that path.
CX did not need another two A330's but did a deal with Airbus to keep the A380 price down and options open.
One wonders that if Boeing had the -800 pax version ready to go right now, how many airlines would have ditched thier 380 orders and just taken that well proven path instead.
sizematters
24th Nov 2006, 08:38
SYD-YVR is longer than LAX-HKG
yes and with maybe 50 people on board it is an impressive demonstration of the machines capabilities.......................
and actually the information posted is 100% accurate and from the data presented to Cathay in order to try and convince them to buy the 380.................so I would say it comes from the flight test data, yes !!!
and 17% less fuel burn than the 747-800......................who's that gem from Hans Christian Eads ???
I will state once more for the record, "The A380 is a heap of crap""
Cathay also had an inordinate amount of problems introducing the A330, lots of engine problems.
If the Airbus product is so excellent, why is it 2 years late?
Engine problems are not airframes problems. If you remember back to the early classic days, you would recall the number of hot starts, stalls, surges ? Do you remember the early 744 days when we had to power down the whole aircraft to reset it ?
The large HKG operator has had numerous engine problems over various fleets, past and present, not so long ago we saw many a 777 sitting around HKG without any engines awaiting a fix.
The type of floors in the aircraft are an option, you pay for what you get. QF had the same problem, the opted for low strength floors, and then found out they could not install their seats. The airline received exactly what it wanted, you pay for what you get.
Airbus have had an almighty production stuff up on the 380, I didn’t say the were excellent, just the best that is on the market at the moment, same with the 330, better than a 767 for range/payload/economy.
CX did not need another two A330's but did a deal with Airbus to keep the A380 price down and options open.
One wonders that if Boeing had the -800 pax version ready to go right now, how many airlines would have ditched thier 380 orders and just taken that well proven path instead.
They want to increase frequencies, I don’t see how they cannot do it without more airframes, unless you are counting on KA.
The SQ experience with the 748 was that after putting in the new interior into the 748, they get the same number of pax as the current 744. No growth.
Despite being available officially and unofficially for many years now, no airline has ordered a 748 for airline service, only orders I am aware of are for cargo and VIP.
yes and with maybe 50 people on board it is an impressive demonstration of the machines capabilities
More like a few people and 50-60t of water ballast, they are not flying them empty. Did you see inside the route proving aircraft when it visited HKG ?
I think your info is rather old, QF and SQ have recently increased their orders based upon the actual aircraft performance.
sizematters
24th Nov 2006, 23:29
Korean Air has placed an order for 25 Boeing aircraft, including 10 777-300ERs, five 737s, five 777-200 freighters and five 747-8 freighters, for delivery between 2009 and 2019.........................hot off the press............mmm..............not a lot of airbus in there.......................
Cathay is also leaning heavily towards the 747-8 as they seem to think it will be possible to CCQ this with the 777 and the 787.......................
so, not much business for the cheese eating surrender monkeys, eh ???
naild
25th Nov 2006, 04:58
"I personally don't enjoy being woken in the middle of the night by an-
85 pound cabin attendant walking past my first class seat- this causes
the seat to move from flexing of the adjoining floor structure."
:cool:
I don't want to bring up the past , but I don't know if any of you guys have sat on the upper deck of a Boeing product? That floor moves when anyone (both small and not so small ) walks past!!
Boeing / Airbus - they are just airplanes trying to be as light and cheap to run as possible.
Capt Fathom
25th Nov 2006, 07:38
the fact it can only use 200ft wide runways
Hope someone tells Qantas soon. The runways in Sydney are only 148'.
Korean Air has placed an order for 25 Boeing aircraft, including 10 777-300ERs, five 737s, five 777-200 freighters and five 747-8 freighters, for delivery between 2009 and 2019.........................hot off the press............mmm..............not a lot of airbus in there.......................
Cathay is also leaning heavily towards the 747-8 as they seem to think it will be possible to CCQ this with the 777 and the 787.......................
Your "hot off the press" news is old. They also operate a mixed fleet including McDs, Fokkers, Bs, and As. KE also have A380 pax orders. Like CX, KE have more 330s than 777s.
The term CCQ is Frenglish, i.e. Airbus speak. It does not exist in the B world. I am yet to see a certification basis to say that B will be able to offer this on the types you mention.
For various reasons (e.g. keeping grandfather rights on the 747 TCDS, existing 777 technology, and different 787 control laws) , the fundamental flight control systems on the 787/777/748 are different. The characteristics will be noticeable to the flight crew, and mainly when you want them to be the same, i.e. during abnormal situations.
The 787/777/748 do not share the same flight control design ("laws"), nor will they share the screen formats, overhead panels, flows, checklists, or systems.
Hope someone tells Qantas soon. The runways in Sydney are only 148'.
While they are at it, someone should tell them to employ sizematters as a consultant as the aircraft does not seem to have the range to do LAX-MEL according to him.
Night Watch
25th Nov 2006, 16:10
It never ceases to amaze me how the A380 bashers (or airbus in general) create such well thought out posts... NOT! The only sensible posts are that of Zeke .....
As for my opinion..... I've flown both types of manufacturers product, and they basically do the same thing. When people ask "which one do you prefer" I always say "It's like a Commodore and a Falcon (Australian cars), both in essence do the same thing.... just happens to be more Commodore lunatics out there!
Plus... at CX you get paid the same no matter what type you fly!
I had to sit in the Jump seat of an A330 the other day,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,holy **** I'd forgotten how complicated and busy the Airbus cockpit is. The 777 is far and away the best looking flight deck around. Uncluttered and nice big screens, not to mention a checklist that actually works.( without having to refer to Fcom 3, Qrh and other books )
The A380 is crap, end of story
Any 787 Pilot could fly the 777 and vice versa after a few days conversion. That is the way Boeing designed it. And the 787 overhead panel is very similar to the 777's
Ask any of our Airbus guys if a light A330 flies the exactly the same way as a heavy A340-600, they will tell you no.
The big fat whale is actually a dog:)
ACMS,
Some rather qualified people are about to make such assessments that do not share your view. People have been carefully observing the last route proving flight which flew SYD-YVR direct a couple of days back, after flying out of JNB the day before.
The operation on the Airbus fleet is somewhat busier than it needs to be because of commonality the company has elected to make between the fleets. They are not being flown to the simpler SOPs that the manufacturer recommends.
I am sure you are capable of recalling the term inertia, a heavy aircraft will not fly like a lighter aircraft, i.e. a light 783 will not fly like a heavy 773, even a light 346 will not fly like a heavy 346, nor will a aircraft with a 36% derate perform like an aircraft with TOGA. Pilots deal with this on a daily basis.
Boeing have come up with some very pretty overhead panels that share the paint colors and fonts to make people feel right at home, it is pure window dressing. The issue is not flying an aircraft from A to B ops normal, it is not the similarity between the overhead panels, it is when the abnormal situations come to hand where real commonality issues are assessed. The assessment continues, and results will not be known until well into or after the 787 flight test program.
Fortunately such engineering and risk assessments are not made on looks, rather substance, functionality and underlying systems.
Boeing also allow customization of overhead panels. Switches can be ordered to work in the opposite sense on the same aircraft type because one customer wanted it a different way to another. This is madness for commonality.
Your beat up is nothing more than the usual uneducated rant.
P.S. last time I looked, the 777 QRH etc is somewhat thicker that the Airbus one.
P.P.S whale is the ATC nickname for the 747.
ACMS,
Boeing also allow customization of overhead panels. Switches can be ordered to work in the opposite sense on the same aircraft type because one customer wanted it a different way to another. This is madness for commonality.
Boeing no longer offer customization you get the base model and then order extras like a car eg the HUD on the 787 is standard and not an option. The days of having switches reversed are over, this practice started with the 777, for cost and the reasons you said.
MrSlapHead
1st Dec 2006, 06:04
heh yeah, right, a dog? how about we just admit the thing is the industry's newest, biggest, fattest white elephant ever
lets see>>>>>> something fails on the Airbus.
1/ run ECAM actions
2/Check paper QRH for other critical info not covered in the ECAM actions
3/check FCOM 3 for other critical info not covered in the ECAM actions
4/Check bulletins for other critical info not covered in the ECAM actions
5/ Hope like hell you didn't miss someting important or read it the wrong way.
Just ask the KA Pilot's at Kai Tak with a flap problem 7 years ago, they nearly bought the farm that day.
I hope that the Airbus guys never have to run the smoke checklist in a real smoke filled cockpit, they'd better read it carefully.
And what the hell is with the flap system in those things? **** oh dear it's complicated what does what and when.
Yeah sounds like Airbus have the operation running like greased lightening.
This is not the case on the 777, generally things run very smoothly and the Electronic checklist works great.
Airbus build a cheap aircraft, no doubt about it.
The Hyundai of the skies.
You get what you pay for.
yawn...................