First off, I hope we can agree that the A380 will never be a freighter.
It will be at some stage.
CX press release states that it can carry a structural payload of 140T. To my knowledge, this is still the case.
Boeing reduced maximum structural payload from 140 tonnes some time ago, much the same time the MTOW was increased. Boeing will recover some of the payload loss with a yet to be announced MZFW increase. The current specification has maximum structural payload at 133901 kg.
That does not mean it can carry it HKG-ANC, but it can lift it.
The advertised payload capability HKG-ANC was 133990 kg.
Assuming the -8F has 16% more volumetric capacity, it would need to carry 116-128T to ANC.
Try and see if you can replicate the 16% number from Boeing marketing with the way cargo is actually packaged and loaded.
increased fuel burn as the primary complaint
Due to the GEnx missing its design SFC.
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.
You have successfully reinvented the wheel, look back to my reply 13 on the first page.
"3. Qantas operates daily LAX-MEL with the A380. LAX-MEL no wind is 131 nm shorter than JFK-HKG (only operated direct by the 777-300ER and A340-600), with the enroute winds, LAX-MEL is longer than JFK-HKG in air nautical miles. I do not know where you get this idea that the A380 cannot do the 600 nm shorter LAX-HKG route (compared to LAX-MEL), when on a daily basis Qantas operates LAX-MEL, and Emirates operate SYD-DXB, both of which are longer flights."
So if the -8I is "not on the cards" for JFK, it really is not for LAX year-round either.
They are your words, not mine. The hint being the headwinds from LAX are seasonal, the distance HKG-JFK-HKG is not.
Since you are an A380 proponent
I look to the scientific evidence, I do not automatically dismiss or endorse anything.
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.
You are comparing the 4 class configuration with the "new" seats on one type to a 3 class configuration, with the "old' seats. They A380 will not lift anywhere near 50% more raw payload over that distance, but it can generate over 50% more total revenue for 20% lower per seat cost.
The true yield of underfloor cargo on such long sector lengths is low. Cargo aircraft have better cargo yields as they can stop and refuel as many times necessary.
CX loves frequency.
A catch phase championed by an individual, however one must look if the connections actually exist. It is evident from the published timetable that the "waves" or periods for optimum transits do not currently exist to support a high frequency model. Cathay Pacific is a single wave airline at its main hub. Emirates is currently building its third wave into their published timetable. This means currently only once a day passengers get optimum transit times. For example, Hong Kong is geographically located such that it has some of the shortest tracks from Europe to the East Coast of Australia, however a number of airlines have shorter total journey times despite having to operate longer routes.
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.
Business owners prefer their staff to have a full days work available either after or before the flight. However that place of work generally is not Hong Kong.
I think it is hard to argue that the A380 is a good recession airplane.
I have previously outlined how Singapore Airlines managed to save over 200 tonnes per week of fuel on a single route during the GFC using the A380 in lieu of 777-300ER frequencies.
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.
Agreed, the first actual reason for not adding the A380 today.
don't even get me started on the Trent 900s. What a mess!
Everyone who has been involved with the industry for some time knows that new aircraft and engines go through stages where problems will arise from time to time. Normally airframe related problems show up rather quickly, and engine related issues later. As they mature, these issues will become a blur.
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.
Given the side of yellow line you seem to prefer, I have a fair idea who has been passing you the "information". The "information" relayed to you may or may not be representative of the work being done in the departments that actually do the analysis and planning. The people in those sort of positions will rarely get involved in micromanaging departments.