Why would CX opt for a 5% improvement in floor area
Increased yield. The ticket price would be the same on a 777, 747 or A380, however the cost per seat on the A380 is around 20% lower than the 777-300ER (which is also lower than the 747-400).
the inability to carry cargo ULH
That is an assertion you have claimed many times without any factual support.
the requirement to load a 450+ seater near full in order to make money on all but the highest yielding routes
More assertions without any factual support. A380s are now being operated on secondary routes and markets, e.g. DXB-MAN, BKK-HKG.
the requirement to establish another aircraft type
I do not disagree with that at all, however a decision needs to be made on -400 replacement.
the inability to fly into many of CX's regional Asian ports
Which ports would they be ? Anywhere a -400 goes should be able to handle an A380. The A380 has operated out of a lot of the Cathay Pacific regional ports already.
You have not truly addressed the ULH cargo issue other than to write that it is not very important financially
I do not understand the "issue" you claim exists. The aircraft does have cargo volume and spare payload capacity to carry cargo, it is also available in two combi configurations (which no airlines has ordered). The 777-300ER has essentially the capacity of a 747 classic combi, they were never that popular as the cost of carrying freight on a passenger aircraft (where non-stop sectors are required) is not as profitable as a dedicated freighter where stops can be made to maximise payload.
For the A380 to be completely full underfloor with passenger baggage would require 3-4 suitcases to be checked in for each passenger.
Similarly, the A380 recession-proofing issue remains unaddressed other than to cite the Singapore/CDG example.
Which is a factual account. Nothing you have presented would trigger an airline to ground their most efficient aircraft in the lower market cycles. One would not schedule an A380 on routes that would not benefit from its capacity, likewise, one would not do the same for a 777-300ER or 747-400.
I do not think it bodes well for the A380 when it cannot compete well numerically with an aircraft two-thirds its size that was introduced 3 years before it.
Again you have provided no evidence to support such a statement, the 777-300ER has around 20% higher costs per seat.
The only way CX will ever order the A380 is as a niche aircraft for slot restricted Euro ports and/or if it is drastically improved by the -900 model and/or if Euro regulators lean hard enough with their eco-taxes or other socialist, subversion methods.
That is your personal view, I assume you also do not realise that Hong Kong has already become a slot restricted airport for several hours a day. While you are predicting the future with such certainty, could you advise me the correct numbers to win the next two mark 6 results so I can retire.
234 orders is hardly a resounding affirmation when you consider that the aircraft has no true market competition in its size category.
A list price of over USD$300 million, with 234 sales I guess that would still be less than your well managed provident fund. The A380 was never going to sell in the numbers of a 737, neither was the 747.
However, newer 777s are powered by GE90s, not Trent 800s. I would postulate that the GE90 and Boeing's magnificent raked-tip, wing design are what make the 777 such a difficult aircraft to compete against today.
The Trent 800 and GE90 are available on 777-200/200ER/300 airframes. The 777-300ER/777-200LR are only available with GE90-115s as GE paid Boeing several hundred million dollars for an exclusivity deal. Rolls Royce did have an engine that could power them, the Trent 8104, they ran that engine producing over 110,000 lb of thrust. They also had the Trent 8115 which has a slightly higher thrust rating again.
The raked wing tip is an afterthought, it is not the first time Boeing used it (767-400). The design feature I like the most on the 777-300ER is the landing gear.
Perhaps you can produce examples, but I do not recall GE, PW, or even CFM having similar teething issues in recent years.
Too many examples from every manufacturer to list, a comprehensive list can be obtained by looking at the Airworthiness Directives from the FAA and EASA. I doubt you would be aware of the history of the ADs applicable to the engines you operate, let alone other engines types not operated by Cathay.
Also, the Engine Alliance (GE/PW) GP7200 is appearing to be a better engine for the A380 at this stage of the game.
The Trent 900s and GP7200s have a different in-service histories, due to the different routes structures being flown, a realistic comparison cannot be made.
When the typhoon flags start flying, the thunderstorms booming, or the piece of crap EADS plastic heap you designed starts tearing itself apart or diving at the ocean, it is going to take a lot more than "a polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride aerialist" to get everyone on the ground in one piece.
Bellwether seems more apt. Does your maid to starch or use scented fabric softener on your flying gloves to give better tactile feel when turning the autopilot on ?
The -400BCF is not a volumetrically efficient freighter, just ask CX.
The Cathay Pacific average cargo density results in the BCF reaching a floor loading or ZFW/MLW first. Package carriers can take advantage of volumetrically efficient freighters as they have lower cargo densities, they are also the most profitable air cargo carriers in the world.
You should be worried that they are already eying the A380 for a P2F conversion.
Not at all, the A380 was designed with a P2F conversion in mind, much like the 747-8I is. David Sutton (FedEx MD for aircraft acquisitions and sales) is actually counting on airlines replacing their A380-800s with A380-900s starting around 2020. He said they would be looking for A380P2F aircraft around the 2020 timeframe, they were looking for 150-200 airframes.
He said a converted -800 would be "a less capable aircraft" than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be "ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying".