Good Debate
Eyes Only,
I will address the points in your last post, but before I do I would like to talk about freighters. Also, I am sensing that you are not a CX pilot, or even a pilot at all perhaps. If so, my apologies as I assumed you were. That said, the points made are still valid and constructive, for the most part.
First off, I hope we can agree that the A380 will never be a freighter. There are so many reasons it would require a separate post to list them all.
As for the -8F, the CX press release states that it can carry a structural payload of 140T. To my knowledge, this is still the case. The -400ERF can carry a structural payload of 128T. That does not mean it can carry it HKG-ANC, but it can lift it. So please, do not be confused by these numbers.
In the current cargo market ex-HKG, a -400 freighter that is nearly 100% volume loaded usually carries about 100-110T. Assuming the -8F has 16% more volumetric capacity, it would need to carry 116-128T to ANC. So as you can see, a payload limit of 125T is not a huge miss in terms of actual market requirements. That said, it is still a disappointment because the plane was designed to carry 134T to ANC and will now be carrying / burning more fuel in place of those 9T. Not good! The director I spoke with mentioned the increased fuel burn as the primary complaint. It will be interesting to see which airplane burns more fuel HKG-ANC, a MTOW -400F or a MTOW -8F. In theory, the -8F should burn slightly less. Time will tell...
I do think your post before last does show ignorance. If you do the research, you will find that in the winter LAX-HKG and JFK-HKG and HKG-JFK have about the same flight times. This means the air mileage is very similar despite the ground mileage being quite different. So if the -8I is "not on the cards" for JFK, it really is not for LAX year-round either. You have to see through the smoke and mirrors of both the Boeing and Airbus websites.
Since you are an A380 proponent, I think the relevant comparison on the HKG-JFK sector is between the it and the 773ER which serves it now. The flight times are 15 hours plus and the 773ER carries 300ish pax, their bags, and significant cargo. The empty weight is approximately 172T and it commonly carries 44T payload and burns about 125T to and from JFK. Since the A380 would likely carry about 450 pax in a CX configuration, add 50% to all those numbers and see if the A380 can compete. Simple math using empty weights of 172T vs 277T divided by the number of seats looks ugly for the A380. This is to mention nothing of cargo. I very much doubt the A380 can compete, but crunch the numbers and let me know...
If it can compete, you have to factor in several other variables like:
1) CX loves frequency. Not only do business travelers prefer it, it makes the network stronger when multiple flights can be timed for hub connecting flights out of Hong Kong. Three flights to/from JFK would almost certainly support these hub times.
2) CX is always preparing for the next downturn. I think it is hard to argue that the A380 is a good recession airplane. The Qantas guy said it correctly, the problem is all the extra weight requires a full load to offset the costs.
3) CX has for years been saying that NA is going to be served by all 773ER. To date, this has increasingly been the case although the -400 still goes to YVR and SFO. The A343 still serves YVR. These services will over time be phased out and replaced by 773ER as deliveries come.
4) The cost of adding another type at CX would not be well received. The -8 is is the process of being added and the A350 will begin soon. The A380 would be a third project which would be viewed negatively unless absolutely necessary for the health of the airline.
5) Maintaining 4 engines certainly costs more than 2, and don't even get me started on the Trent 900s. What a mess!
"Please advise me what "misinformation" I have been spreading ?"
You stating that the -8I was not on the cards for JFK. I heard it straight from the horses mouth that CX was looking at the -8I for JFK. The same cannot be said for the A380, according to him.