B748i or A380 order?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Location Location
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And somehow KE, TG, MH, LH, BA, AF... have all managed to slot these into their rosters in some productive fashion. Amazing. Not only that, but LH and KE have doubled down and ordered from both buffet items. I suppose CX will be eating their lunches soon too?
There's bean counting... and bean counting. I think dominating the Hong Kong aviation market for so long has made CX's management soft.
We'll have more hard data soon enough though. BA's whales are beaching here in November, apparently in the midst of the next downturn in the ongoing financial crisis saga event thing. No better way to test all these splendid theories on capacity etcetera than in a lukewarm economy.
There's bean counting... and bean counting. I think dominating the Hong Kong aviation market for so long has made CX's management soft.
We'll have more hard data soon enough though. BA's whales are beaching here in November, apparently in the midst of the next downturn in the ongoing financial crisis saga event thing. No better way to test all these splendid theories on capacity etcetera than in a lukewarm economy.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's put it this way for the LHR market (1500 seats and 100T cargo)...
3 x A380 + 1 x 747F
Or
5 x 777-300ER
... Maybe an oversimplification, but which is cheaper to operate and provides more flexibility in the case of a downturn.
3 x A380 + 1 x 747F
Or
5 x 777-300ER
... Maybe an oversimplification, but which is cheaper to operate and provides more flexibility in the case of a downturn.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps our management have not been shown the big picture as predicted by Air China's bean counters. As with Jack and the Beanstalk, you gotta know your beans and you enemy / competition. No decision on VLA, when told it would be forthcoming by mid 2013, means look for the deception plan.
After enough years in CX to qualify for a wheelchair...my vote is for frequency over heavy-lift.
The 380 doesn't lift cargo over 10 hours. The 777 does and provides the opportunity for frequency.
Given the CX spider network...stay with the 777ER as the long haul camel. The 330/350 as the feeder. Leave the freight to the 748 and add some PX to the fleet for destinations that are slot limited like LHR.
Ideal fleet profile in 2020:
A330/340/350 - 50
777ER/300/200 - 50
747PX 800 -10
747FX400/800-20
FWIW
The 380 doesn't lift cargo over 10 hours. The 777 does and provides the opportunity for frequency.
Given the CX spider network...stay with the 777ER as the long haul camel. The 330/350 as the feeder. Leave the freight to the 748 and add some PX to the fleet for destinations that are slot limited like LHR.
Ideal fleet profile in 2020:
A330/340/350 - 50
777ER/300/200 - 50
747PX 800 -10
747FX400/800-20
FWIW
Does carrying MZFW for 14.5hrs count as over 10hrs?
The Don
The Don
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Don,
I think we covered this before, but what is the payload at MZFW for an EK A380? How much of that payload was cargo? I realize they are not all the same, so maybe the newer ones please.
Also, what was the burn for that 14.5 hour flight at MZFW?
Cheers!
I think we covered this before, but what is the payload at MZFW for an EK A380? How much of that payload was cargo? I realize they are not all the same, so maybe the newer ones please.
Also, what was the burn for that 14.5 hour flight at MZFW?
Cheers!
Last edited by cxorcist; 26th Jun 2013 at 20:45.
VCLXI,
Were they full of pax and volume limited on freight?
I can assure you that most of the time staff are waiting up to 3 days to get to LHR and back. 5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 748's. We need a VLA on LHR, doesn't matter which one although a 747-8i would require a minimum of training costs.
Were they full of pax and volume limited on freight?
I can assure you that most of the time staff are waiting up to 3 days to get to LHR and back. 5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 748's. We need a VLA on LHR, doesn't matter which one although a 747-8i would require a minimum of training costs.
MFF between the 350 and 380, who knows, I'm sure Airbus will push for it.
MFF between the 744 and 747-8F is happening already.
The real question right now is if they will try MFF between the 777 and the -8, the chief pilot (s) have been doing it for a while, but doing it with a larger selection/all the Boeing crew is another story.
MFF between the 744 and 747-8F is happening already.
The real question right now is if they will try MFF between the 777 and the -8, the chief pilot (s) have been doing it for a while, but doing it with a larger selection/all the Boeing crew is another story.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing are sponsoring a MFF 747-777 with the FAA, if this is approved then it opens the door for CAD to approve. However, it's one thing for a chief pilot to do, what about your average pilot who will be struggling for currency on the other type.
Costs will be the determining factor, and as pilots we don't like change maybe we should embrace this and work it to our advantage. Pay/COS etc.
Costs will be the determining factor, and as pilots we don't like change maybe we should embrace this and work it to our advantage. Pay/COS etc.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloudcuckooland
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 744/748 is the same type rating. Only a differences course required. If you're current on one you're current on the other. No MFF malarky.
The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i
The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i
CX,
It would burn about 60t more than a 777 to LHR and 50t more on the return. 17t freight on the long range ones with 489 pax. 19t on the med range ones with 517 pax. Think I showed previously how the extra pax ticket cost covers more than the fuel cost. Unless of course fuel gets to over $4000 per 1000kg.
But if you haven't got the pax base to fill em you wouldn't want to be flying them. ULR flying from the sand pit is being moved from the 777 to the 380 as it makes more money. Our 777s have 54 more seats than yours. They become MTOW limited at 12hrs so are only carrying 45t of revenue to/from the oz east coast and less to LAX.
The Don.
It would burn about 60t more than a 777 to LHR and 50t more on the return. 17t freight on the long range ones with 489 pax. 19t on the med range ones with 517 pax. Think I showed previously how the extra pax ticket cost covers more than the fuel cost. Unless of course fuel gets to over $4000 per 1000kg.
But if you haven't got the pax base to fill em you wouldn't want to be flying them. ULR flying from the sand pit is being moved from the 777 to the 380 as it makes more money. Our 777s have 54 more seats than yours. They become MTOW limited at 12hrs so are only carrying 45t of revenue to/from the oz east coast and less to LAX.
The Don.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don,
Thx. I do believe CX could fill the A380 at least once per day to LHR, LAX, and JFK (maybe SFO as well). Of course, any airline can fill anything if willing to collapse yields. I think the question for CX is return on investment. I believe CX sees a higher ROI from another A350 or 777 than it does from an A380. Keep in mind that the real price of those two twins is around $150M and the A380 is about $190M. I'm sure CX could get the -8I über cheap since very few carriers seem to want them. So maybe those numbers start to look extremely attractive.
I agree with Busy B that CX needs something bigger, even if only in small numbers (10-12). The -8 makes more sense from a cargo volume perspective and because there would be essentially no training costs for crews and maintenance on the Intercontinental. However, maybe Doric offers CX attractive lease terms such that the A380 makes sense.
Thx. I do believe CX could fill the A380 at least once per day to LHR, LAX, and JFK (maybe SFO as well). Of course, any airline can fill anything if willing to collapse yields. I think the question for CX is return on investment. I believe CX sees a higher ROI from another A350 or 777 than it does from an A380. Keep in mind that the real price of those two twins is around $150M and the A380 is about $190M. I'm sure CX could get the -8I über cheap since very few carriers seem to want them. So maybe those numbers start to look extremely attractive.
I agree with Busy B that CX needs something bigger, even if only in small numbers (10-12). The -8 makes more sense from a cargo volume perspective and because there would be essentially no training costs for crews and maintenance on the Intercontinental. However, maybe Doric offers CX attractive lease terms such that the A380 makes sense.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please consider this when using Chinese airlines to compare to others.
Chinese airlines do not need to make a profit. They make money off people like me who operate private airplanes into China. The latest stops we have made in Beijing are up to 50k USD per flight. Part of this charge is actually called an "Airline Compensation Charge", where I have to pay to compensate the Chinese carriers for not carrying these passengers in and out of China.
I flew China Eastern (380) from LAX to Beijing myself a month back. Business class was not even half full. The rest of the plane was about half full.
If you are using Malaysian Airlines as an example of airlines that use the 380 profitably, you may wish to rethink that. Malaysian is basically bankrupt, I would expect to see big changes there shortly. They bought the 380 for the same reason they built a gazillion dollar Formula 1 track. P..nis envy.
That being said, as a passenger I enjoy riding on the 380. It is nice and quiet.
I flew China Eastern (380) from LAX to Beijing myself a month back. Business class was not even half full. The rest of the plane was about half full.
If you are using Malaysian Airlines as an example of airlines that use the 380 profitably, you may wish to rethink that. Malaysian is basically bankrupt, I would expect to see big changes there shortly. They bought the 380 for the same reason they built a gazillion dollar Formula 1 track. P..nis envy.
That being said, as a passenger I enjoy riding on the 380. It is nice and quiet.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: -
Posts: 174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even with 5 flights a day now, they are still all full. Get a 6th LHR flight? Good luck.
Not that the company is required to keep spare seats for ID90, but as long as all flights are as full ... there must be passengers aplenty for larger aircraft.
Not that the company is required to keep spare seats for ID90, but as long as all flights are as full ... there must be passengers aplenty for larger aircraft.
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 744/748 is the same type rating. Only a differences course required. If you're current on one you're current on the other. No MFF malarky.
The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i
The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i
Current FAR 25 (link here)
§ 25.807 Emergency exits.
<snip>
(f) Location.
<snip>
(f) Location.
(1) Each required passenger emergency exit must be accessible to the passengers and located where it will afford the most effective means of passenger evacuation.
(2) If only one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tailcone or ventral emergency exit, the floor-level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation.
(3) If more than one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a combination cargo and passenger configuration, at least one floor-level exit must be located in each side near each end of the cabin.
(2) If only one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tailcone or ventral emergency exit, the floor-level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation.
(3) If more than one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a combination cargo and passenger configuration, at least one floor-level exit must be located in each side near each end of the cabin.
Sec. 25.807
Passenger emergency exits.
<snip>
(c) Passenger emergency exits. The prescribed exits need not be diametrically opposite each other nor identical in size and location on both sides. They must be distributed as uniformly as practicable taking into account passenger distribution. If only one floor level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tail cone or ventral emergency exit, the floor level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment, unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation. Where more than one floor level exit per side is prescribed, at least one floor level exit per side must be located near each end of the cabin, except that this provision does not apply to combination cargo/passenger configurations. Exits must be provided as follows:
<snip>
Passenger emergency exits.
<snip>
(c) Passenger emergency exits. The prescribed exits need not be diametrically opposite each other nor identical in size and location on both sides. They must be distributed as uniformly as practicable taking into account passenger distribution. If only one floor level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tail cone or ventral emergency exit, the floor level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment, unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation. Where more than one floor level exit per side is prescribed, at least one floor level exit per side must be located near each end of the cabin, except that this provision does not apply to combination cargo/passenger configurations. Exits must be provided as follows:
<snip>
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus questions Boeing's certification plan for new widebody 747-8I to use grandfathered data from previous Jumbos
All water under the bridge now.
Airbus questions Boeing's certification plan for new widebody 747-8I to use grandfathered data from previous Jumbos
The 747-400 was itself approved as an amendment to the certification of the original 747-100 that was launched in 1966.
According to Leahy, the door configuration in the forward part of the 747 main deck - where passengers in the nose-section have no forward exit option - would also be non-compliant. "You have to have two directions to get out," he says.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa orders 36 777-9X, 30 more options
BAM!
We missed the boat on the 380 and the 747-8i.
Ok, fine, they don't want a 4 engine fuel guzzler.
But they're about to miss the boat on the large twin, too ....
We missed the boat on the 380 and the 747-8i.
Ok, fine, they don't want a 4 engine fuel guzzler.
But they're about to miss the boat on the large twin, too ....
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, you can bet your profit share that CX will be buying the 777-9.
They're already pretty involved in the program and have started to pester Boeing by sending a bunch of guys to Seattle to whine about how they want it done.
They just don't like to be the launch customer of anything. It's bitten their hand before...
They're already pretty involved in the program and have started to pester Boeing by sending a bunch of guys to Seattle to whine about how they want it done.
They just don't like to be the launch customer of anything. It's bitten their hand before...
