380?

[Fly747]

CEO says Cathay mulls A380 or 747-8 orders
By:
Geoffrey Thomas

Cathay Pacific Airways CEO Tony Tyler told ATW in Perth that the carrier is still keeping the door open on possible A380 or 747-8 orders, while urging Boeing to improve its "fantastic" 777.

"The 777-300ER is a fantastic aircraft but it’s going to need to improve to compete with the A350-1000," he said. "Sure, the A350-1000 is not a Hong Kong–New York aircraft but it certainly is a Hong Kong–Europe aircraft. And so if they are going to sell more 777s to us they will have to improve it."

Tyler also said Boeing needs to make the 777 more efficient with more seat rows and reduced weight. "But I know they don’t intend to abandon that part of the market. They have a firm grip on it and intend to defend it."

On the A380 and 747-8, Tyler said there will come a time when "Cathay will need a bigger aircraft" for capacity-restrained airports such as Heathrow. But it has to fly from "West Coast US to Hong Kong, nonstop all-weather, with a full payload," challenged Tyler, who said these are "bread and butter" routes for CX.

Tyler noted CX would not be ordering a token number of super jumbos. "You have to order a sensible number to get the best deals and get the right economy of scale," he said, without putting a timetable on any potential order but hinted it would be a few years yet. The carrier has ordered 10 747-8Fs and will begin taking delivery in 2011.

[hawkeye]

There are 10 further options on the 747-8 which could be converted to pax config. 747-8 will carry a full load from LAX to HKG with diversion fuel for Bangkok. A380 not close.

[Eyes only]

hawkeye,

Qantas and Emirates for some time now are operating A380s on sectors which are longer than LAX-HKG, and they doing do so very comfortably with the "A" model.

LAX-MEL has a sector length about 10% longer than LAX-HKG with similar sorts of total average winds that Cathay could expect during winter. Previously Qantas operated this sector with a 744ER (only airline with the 400ER passenger aircraft) with a much reduced seating configuration just to make it.

EK are now operating the A380 on routes they previously operated the 777-300ER, e.g. their daily EK412 (DXB-SYD-AKL-SYD-DXB). Their president has said the A380 is burning 20% less fuel per seat than their 777-300ERs. That is quite a feat when you compare their seating on the 777-300ERs is about 20 seats (2 rows of economy) shy of what Cathay put on the 744.

Cathay would not gain much capacity at all if they put a Premium Economy class into the 747-8I (4 class aircraft), however using a more generous seat pitch and width on the A380 would result in about 70-80 additional seats with the quietest cabin, and excellent IFE. Singapore airlines on their regional services have been having consistently high loads factors on the A380, while load factors have dropped on their competitors. The A380 flights I have been on have been 100% full.

I do not think many of the common detractors for the A380 are holding much water these days given the aircraft now has 3 years of operational experience with 4 airlines. If Cathay was to get the 747-8I it would still be the "A" model, if they went for the A380 it would be the more mature "C" model that start being delivered to airlines onwards from 2012.

The A380 would also have crewing efficiencies, with A350 crews able to fly the A380, the same efficiencies would not be available on the 747-8F/747-8I.

Media reports of the only two airlines that purchased the 747-8I indicated that it was allegedly as part of a compensation settlement with Boeing. Lufthansa it was due to the money they lost when Boeing decided to close down their inflight broadband service (Connexion by Boeing) a short time after they have spent US$500,000 per aircraft to install the hardware and Korean due to their ongoing 787 and 747-8F delays.

I do not think Cathay would operate a new large aircraft on any route exclusively, I think they would do so with a combination of frames, e.g. a mix of 777-300ER and 747-8I or 777-300ER and A380 frequencies to LHR would be more likely than all frequencies with one type, that would prove the best mix for passenger and cargo capacity increase while still giving operational flexibility.

I do not think Mr Tyler has expressed any view that is different to what the previous CEO had said a few years earlier, I think they are still receptive to considering both airframes, but that could translate into no order for either as well.

All of the above is my personal view, Mr Tyler speaks for the company.

[Ex Cathedra]

In an expansion mindset, the A380 would certainly be a better fit as the 748 would only fit a handful seats more than the current jumbo, especially if they decide to go for premium eco and to drop the coffin class.

Not to mention that as competitors are receiving theirs, it won't be long before they all start sending herds of 'em to HK, and since it's pretty popular with the punters, our dearly beloved premium pax won't be long in asking why they've just spent a ton of money to fly in a 40 years old jumbo while they could've gotten an A380 for the same price with BA, AF, LH, QF, SQ, KE, even EK...

On the downside, it would be harder to send it on regional flights the way the 744s are used today. I doubt MNL is in any way ready to handle one of these, much less DPS...
And the way EK is ordering them like they're running out of fashion, it might be tough to get early slots, especially if they don't sort out the production rate issue.

[BalusKaptan]

Eyes Only, I don't understand you comment regarding the crewing efficencies. Crew able to operate A350 and A380 is no more/less efficent than 747-8F crews operating 747-8I. While the 744F remains in the fleet, at least another 15 - 20 years (having recently taken delivery of 6 new ERF) this would be even more efficent.

[Eyes only]

Kaptan Balus,

The 744/744F/748F pilots are not able to fly the 777 at the same time.

FARNBOROUGH: The A350 flightdeck - pilots at home in the future (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/07/13/343771/farnborough-the-a350-flightdeck-pilots-at-home-in-the-future.html)

The A350 flightdeck has evolved from the A380's, but an A330 pilot would feel totally at home in it. Rather than introducing radical new ideas, the manufacturer has worked on improving the accessibility of the unprecedented amount of information available to the crews, the ease of use of all the avionics and systems, and the clarity and intuitiveness of displays so as to maximise crew situational awareness.

The way flight and systems information is presented to the crew is fundamentally the same as it is in an A330/A340 series aircraft, because although Airbus wants to advance, it also wants to make cross-crew-qualification (CCQ) with other types in its stable easy and cheap.

[akerosid]

Bottom line: the 747-8 is the end of the 747 line. The A380-800 is the beginning of the A380 line. While you might have commonality with the 748F, there's no growth in the 747; once the 747-8 ceases production, that's it.

If you're going to make a major investment in a large pax aircraft (and it will be, if you're going to have a significant fleet), invest in something which will carry the airline at least 10-15 years into the future. Airbus will eventually develop a higher gross weight model for longer range, not to mention a stretched -900 model. On top of that, there is bound to be significant commonality between the A350 and A380.

For the last 30 years, the 747 has served CX superbly in various guises, just as many acft before it - the Electra, CV880, 707 and Tristar - have done; I have a huge admiration for the 747 and it will be a sad day when the last one rolls off the line, but time marches on CX needs the best bang for its buck.

That's the A380.

[cxorcist]

Without having all the facts on the A380 since they seem not to be published anywhere, my understanding is that there are a few problems with it as it pertains to Cathay Pacific.

1) The seat & tonne costs per km, despite being a larger aircraft, are higher than those of the 748I (Boeing website). Whether this is true or not, the trip costs are without question higher on a much heavier airplane.

2) The A380 cargo space is limited relative to the number of seats on the aircraft. Therefore, the highly lucrative revenue downstairs is limited by all the passenger bags. CX makes boatloads of cash on belly cargo. The 748I has 26% more belly cargo capacity than the 744 (Boeing website) with only a 12.2% increase in passenger seats.

3) For Trans-Pacific flights (SYD-LAX), my understanding is that the 380 cannot carry much additional revenue when compared to the 744ER. This, I'm told, is primarily due to the massive build-up of mandatory fuel resulting from so few en-route alternates being available. I am not sure if this would be the case in the North Pacific, but I don't imagine that PASY or PACD can handle the A380.

4) The 748F will be established at CX. Training, logistics, maintenance, etc for the 748I would mostly be within the existing infrastructure. The addition of the A380 would be another type to bring into the company. With the A350 coming in 2016+, I think bringing two new types on board would be viewed as a negative economically and operationally.

5) The A380 is not a good recession airplane because it is so large. CX prefers operational flexibility and route frequency, which is why they love the 773ER so much. The 748I would have more flexibility than the A380 regionally and on ULH routes (HKG-JFK).

6) All indications are that passengers love the A380 and buy tickets accordingly. While I am sure this is true, I am not sure the same would not be the case for the 748I. My understanding is that it will incorporate many of the same interior features as the passenger friendly 787 (minus the cabin's higher humidity & lower altitude of course). Not that it matters anyways, CX will put horrible seats in whatever they buy.

7) CX has not had the best experience with Airbus. I think there is a distrust there that stems from the early mechanical problems with the 330 and the 346 that never really lived up to the claims wrt long-haul performance. The Boeing aircraft, by contrast, tend to meet or exceed expectations (like with the 744ERFs and 777ERs). The A350 order was, IMO, just a statement by CX that they have no intentions of going to an all Boeing fleet. I think the company is viewing the A350 as a replacement aircraft for the A330s, A340s, and 772s. However, they have no desire to be tethered to one company and most definitely not an American one at that.

For these reasons, I simply cannot see CX ordering the A380. I am happy to be wrong and corrected on any of the above. Perhaps a limited order of A380s for the European markets makes sense, but the risks associated with the A380 seem greater than the rewards when compared to the 748I.

[flyingkiwi]

Not sure i see your point, the risks of the 380 have been borne out, it has been in service for 3 years, and im pretty sure CX have lost as much confidence in Boeing in recient times, when were the 74-8 meant to arrive.

I figure an aircraft that has orders from only 2 airliners cant be that good even on paper otherwise why havnt other airlines jumped on it. Yet the 380 is still getting fresh orders.

[Eyes only]

cxorcist,

1) The Boeing website numbers assume the 747-8I has 467 passengers onboard and assumes the A380 is 10t heavier than it is. 747-8I website numbers assume that airlines have a first class with a 152 cm seat pitch, and 96 cm seat pitch in business (Cathay has a 205 cm bed in first, and a 198 cm bed in business, the actual pitch is even higher). The seat width Boeing uses in first is 53 cm, and 50 cm in business, Cathay provides 91 cm in first, and 81 cm in business. In real airline configurations the number is approximately 80% of the capacity Boeing is claiming (as a comparison Boeing claim the 777-300ER is a 370 seat 3 class aircraft whilst Cathay has 301 seats, again around 80%). In comparison the A380 is touted as a 525 seat aircraft, Lufthansa has 526 seats, Air France 538, Singapore 471, Emirates 489, and Qantas 450 (they have a 4 class configuration).

2) The A380 cargo space compared to a 777-300ER is not as good (38 vs 44 LD3s), but it is better than a 744 (38 vs 32 LD3s). FYI the 333 and 772 have the same LD3 capacity as the 744. It is more expensive to lift freight underfloor on a passenger aircraft than it is to put in on a dedicated freighter, the freight you want underfloor on passenger aircraft is high yield freight, not general freight.

3) Qantas is not having any range/load difficulties with the A380. The aircraft is often dispatched 20t below MTOW with full a payload even on LAX-MEL. Qantas has had a medical diversion into Fiji, and severe weather in SYD also caused a tech stop in Noumea. The 744ER that Qantas operates only has a capacity of 26 LD3 as the space of 6 LD3s is taken up with additional fuel tanks.

4) The 747-8 does not have a lot of commonality with the 744/F outside of the cockpit, parts wise is it upwards of 85% different.

5) SQ/QF/EK A380s during the recent GFC had load factors were on average 5 points higher than their other long haul aircraft. It allowed SQ to consolidate the number of services whilst still retaining capacity, they also charged passengers a premium to travel on the A380.

6) The cabin altitude (around 6000 ft) in the A330/A340/A380 is already what Boeing is planning to bring in on the 787. It is nothing new. The upper deck and forward section of the 747 are difficult to adapt seats for that were designed for cabins with parallel walls like the 777.

7) Cathay is the largest A330 operator in the world, and operates the most Airbus types either directly or through its subsidiaries. The A340-600 did the job it was intended for, it opened up the direct HKG-JFK route thereby linking up the three main financial centres with non-stop flights. All the carriers that are operating the A380 have stated that their aircraft are exceeding the performance guarantees.

[cxorcist]

Eyes only,

First off, it is clear that you are an A380 fan and that I favor the 748. It sounds as if you know your numbers, but the ones you provided did not directly address the comparison between the A380 and 748I.

1) With regard to fuel burn, I learned subsequent to my post that Lufthansa considers the seat / km cost to be 3% higher on the 748I with similar cabin arrangements. The burn was something like 3.4 liters per 100km on the 748I compared to the A380's 3.3 liters. I would say that is a negligible advantage unless you are convinced you can run the A380 at capacity. The trip cost, on the other hand, is most assuredly higher on the A380. This is definitely a consideration and often the first metric airlines look at before purchasing an aircraft. Realistically, load factors run somewhere around 80%. Assuming this to be the case, the A380's advantage evaporates.

2) With regard to belly cargo, the comparison is between the A380 and the 748I, not the 744. Even if the two airplanes have the same cargo volume (I think the 748I may have the A380 beat by 2 LD3s), there should be more room to carry cargo on the 748 due to fewer passenger bags. Regardless of whether it is express freight or not, more cargo volume equals more revenue potential.

3) My Qantas example was just something I heard, not fact. However, I will say that paying to lift mandatory fuel is never a good thing in that it costs money without making any. I am not sure how much build-up is required on QF transpacs, but it seems likely that it occurs frequently and would for CX on the NoPac routes as well. To this end, I do not think the A380 will be doing HKG-JFK, but the 748I very well could.

4) I never said the 748 had commonality with the 744F, although I am sure that it does have some. My point was that the 748F will already be set up at CX by the time any 748Is would potentially arrive. Therefore, the infrastructure would already be in place with only the 748F / 748I differences to add.

5) Over time, I am sure the novelty of the A380 will wear off. However, I do not doubt that it exists now. I think that the relative advantage which it has now over the 747 and 777 service it competes with will be diminished by the 787 and 748I interiors. Also, consolidating flights is, in general, not something CX seeks to do. They like to add frequency so as to better serve business travelers. This makes it easier to pull capacity during downturns which is something I would be very concerned about with the A380 and its trip costs.

6) You are correct about the cabin pressure, but the humidity will be exclusive to the 787 and, presumably, the 350.

7) I am not going to argue about the track record of Airbus vs Boeing aircraft. It would be a complete waste of time as we both know who builds better machines.:ok:

[Eyes only]

cxorcist,

I am glad you have declared your bias for the 747-8I, hence people can understand why you have decided to post misinformation.

1. Lufthansa has within the last 12 months increased the number of seats they are planning to deploy on the 747-8I, less premium and more economy. Lufthansa is looking at installing approximately 90-95% of the theoretical 467 seats Boeing says a 747-8I can have, Cathay typically sits at around the 80% mark. The 747-8I and A380 were compared also by Emirates/Singapore/Qantas, and it was considered it did not have any economic advantage over the 747-8I with their seats installed. The Lufthansa numbers you presented also agree with this.

2. The A380 has two more LD3 positions than the 747-8I, not the other way around. The A380 has 50% more floor space than a 744, that is also real revenue potential. The A380 in size is an A333 ontop of the 744 main deck. The 747-8I has a 4 m plug in front of the wing and a 1.5 m plug aft of the wing, that translates to 6 EY rows.

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.

4. When freighters have interiors, galleys, toilets, and IFE, then they will be some commonality between them. At the moment Cathay is not setup at all for a new large passenger aircraft, it will require investment either way. If Cathay went for the 747-8I, we would have to buy a lot more spares as very few of them have been ordered, we could not rely on other airline stores. A380 spares are already in place at HKG, SYD, SIN, BKK, LHR, FRA, CDG, DXB, LAX, and JFK.

5. A380 total trip costs are lower than a 744, and if you believe what Emirates say, it is 20% better on a per seat basis than a 777-300ER, and Singapore says 20% better than their 744s. The A380 also has a 4000 ft higher initial cruising altitude than the 744/747-8, meaning they will fly above most of the other 747/777 traffic being able to stay at it optimum level, it would open up more enroute slots to Europe for Cathay.

6. Higher cabin humidity is available as an option from other manufacturers, for example Air Mauritius has humidifiers installed on their A340s. The majority of the cabin humidity that will exist on the 787 will come from the passengers, current aircraft remove this. The 787 does not carry water to humidity the cabin, and the outside air is dry.

7. I do not think you have ever flown an Airbus, so I do not think you can make any objective comment. However lots of us have been deafened by the 747 cockpit noise levels, myself included.:rolleyes:

[Bograt]

Does anyone posting here really think they'll change someone else's opinion?:ugh:

[parabellum]

Does anyone posting here really think they'll change someone else's opinion?:ugh:


Not if they don't accept that the A380 is fine for a very limited niche market. It was intended as a B747 replacement with similar numbers, circa.1500, that will never happen, the B777 and A330/340 are already out there doing that job. Just over 200 firm orders at the moment. 500, (at least), to break even?

A two thirds full A380, with undoubted passenger appeal, is not economically viable and on average that is about the best any operator can hope for whilst the B777, A330 & 340 and the B747-400 and 747-800 are out there in competition.

[BalusKaptan]

Eyes Only
You post read as though you were saying the A350/380 were a common endorsement and not the B744/8. I don't advocate the B777 as common with the B744/8 just as the A330 is not with the A350/380.
Bottom line, I don't think the commonality, or lack of, will be of overiding significance if one type over the other has better economics of operation. I personally see CX eventually purchasing both types as the route structure (Slot constrained airports etc) and type of CX operation phylosophy(high frequency with cargo belly space) being the driving factor. Even with a minimal order of A380s and -8Is they would both be part of a sizeable fleet due to the A350s and 744Fs/-8Fs.
As for noise levels, until recently I would agree with you hands down...but...ever been in an ERF, could hardly believe it was a Boeing and I hear the -8F/I is quieter. I look foreward to the chance for a trip on one (not easy as a frieghter) to see (hear) for myself.
I believe Air China also ordered 20 -8Is last August. It seems to have been kept very quiet but that should start the rumour mill going what with the Cx tie-up.

[prairiedriver]

I am leaning in the favor of cxorcist today. A bit of a blow for the bus fans a la Qantas.

[cxorcist]

Put Yank engines (GP7200) on the A380 and it will probably continue to fly just fine, but that still does not make it an economical aircraft for CX and certainly not for CX flying across the Pacific.

Eyes Only,

You keep comparing the A380 to the B744 (trip costs, etc). The question is between the A380 and the B748, not other airplanes. The bottom line for me is this, the A380 only makes sense when it is filled up with load factors over 90% and does not require mandatory fuel to be carried all over the place. One market comes to mind wrt CX, LHR. It is possible that FRA and CDG could be thrown into the mix.

The A380 is heavy (277T or so), and when it is loaded up with mandatory fuel it can weigh over 300T without a single passenger, pallet, or one drop of trip fuel. So, one certainly needs over 500 seats to spread those costs out.

By contrast, the B748I only weighs 213T. It goes without saying that the requirement for mandatory fuel will be much less. By simple math, the 748 weighs less per seat than does the A380 regardless the haggling over seating configurations. Assuming similar fuel burns per seat, which airplane would you rather own? One with 400+ seats or one with 500+ seats? How about in a downturn? No brainer. The A380 does not offer enough cost advantage (if any) to justify its risk as a financial albatross when the economy downturns.

I think one has to admit, the A380 is (at this stage of the game) a niche aircraft. Qantas remains the only carrier using it across the Pacific (until yesterday that was), and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Perhaps Korean will take them across because the flight times are less from North Asia, but the requirement will still be there for mandatory fuel build-up.

Forget the costs of a new aircraft type and the fact that an A380 is a horrible recession airplane. The question becomes: Is the extra BOW (64T to 90T+ with mandatory buildup) worth less than one hundred extra seats and two LD-3 pallet positions? I am thinking probably not, but it might preserve your hearing...

[dRAGON hEAD]

Nothing is ever as simple as simple minded people would like to have it. First, the "yank engine" blurb. Here's your most proven all American Yank engine having a bad bad day: AA 767 High Pressure Turbine Failure (http://www.dauntless-soft.com/PRODUCTS/Freebies/AAEngine/) That incident totaled the 767 it was hanging from during a routine engine run test on the ground. Left main tank emptied completely onto the ramp due to several large puncture holes into the lower wing surface skin. Try having THAT happen to you half way across the pacific... with a YANK engine, a GE CF6-80.

Second, the airlines' equipment purchasing decisions are largely influenced by their marketing department since a while ago. All of that number crunching means nothing and will be worth jack sh!t when your competitor flies a more attractive product in direct competition and you have to lower your seat price to be able to sell seats on your 'less attractive to customers' aircraft. Do you think the general public know anything at all about Boeing vs. Airbus ? All they will ever know is how comfortable the interior of it is, period. Larger cabin, more inflight conveniences, the allure of flying on a 'super-jumbo jet' or whatever fancy name they decide to call it, etc... If marketing cannot sell the product, everything else means nothing. And no airline in their right mind would ignore the wishes of it's sales team over number crunchers when the sales team says "we can sell this product for this much and that one for this much less". That's how it works in the airline industry. Good or bad. Nothing new.

[Eyes only]

Bograt,

Wise observation.

Kaptan Balus,

They are not common type ratings (like the A330 and A340), however mixed fleet flying an cross crew qualification is possible. Cathay has the flexibility to use approximately 1000 pilots that could then be extended onto another type(s) without loss of productivity on their current type. Also improves rostering with a mixture of long haul and regional flights.

prairiedriver,

I take it you also think that the new 747 should no longer be considered as QF6 (747) had to return to SIN today on 3 engines ?

cxorcist,

Comparing the A380 to the 744 as that is what it would replace on similar routes.

A "green" A380 has a manufacturers empty weight of around 235t, i.e. close to the fly away empty weight it would have leaving TLS before going to XFW for a passenger interior. The operating empty weight of the aircraft depends on how an airline decides to fit the aircraft out.

A380 fuel burns are very similar to the 744, so are the thrust levels. Takeoff and landing performance on the A380 is significantly better, Air France and Lufthansa are already taking advantage of that out of JNB.

Like it or not the 747-8 is the end of the line for the 747 model, it is an inefficient upgrade to the 744. It is not an attractive passenger aircraft at all from an economics point of view, the revamped 777-300ER that people keep asking for will do just about everything it will do.

The 747-8I has less range than the A380. The A380 is already exceeding fuel burn guarantees by a few percent, with more in the pipeline, the same cannot be said for the 747-8F which is at risk of missing them at the moment.

I am not sure why you are going on about "mandatory fuel". Fuel planning for the A380 is very similar to the 744 including alternate and reserve fuel. The A380 is also fully compliant with the new extended operations rules that will also include quads. A380s have comfortably been doing sectors as long as JFK-HKG (in air miles) with Emirates and Qantas for the past 3 years.

You can add Singapore Airlines to the transpacific list, SQ001 (HKG-SFO) is going to be upgraded to an A380 when they have more delivered. Korean will be using theirs across to LAX. Cathay will soon be competing with A380 services not only regionally, also to the Australia, Middle East, North America, and Europe with the current equipment/seats.

During the recent GFC Singapore Airlines reduced their frequency on the SIN-CDG route, they substituted 7 A380 flights for the 10 777-300ER flights. The A380s added 19% more seat capacity using 9% less total fuel (reduction of around 200 t of fuel per week, or close to 30% on a per seat basis). Load factors on average on the A380 services remained high, even in premium classes.

I do not think Cathay would have 500+ seats in the A380, nor do I think they would put 400+ seats in a 747-8I. In a 4 class configuration I would think the 747-8I would have less capacity than todays 744 has with Cathay.

As Bograt said, it does not matter what we think, the people crunching the numbers most probably would not know the difference between a 777 and a 747.

[dragon man]

hope you dont mind a Qantas 400 driver adding his bit. The 380s appeal in Qantas is because the cabin is fabulous and the IFE works. It is my belief that if a 400 or any other aircraft had the new interior and good IFE it would have the same pax appeal. On an Lax/Syd service one night i followed the 380 out and compared both loadsheets. Both the 400(RR) and 380 were at MTOW. Over the sector the 380 was about 1% more fuel efficient than the 400 per KG of payload. The problem with the 380 as i see it is that as its empty weight is approx 100,000kgs heavy than a 400 you cant afford to operate it with poor load factors as the fuel burn per KG of payload will be prohibitive.

[cxorcist]

dragon man,

If you do not mind a few questions:

What was the mandatory fuel for the 380 in comparison to the 400? My understanding is that many en-route alternates which work for the 400 do not work for the 380, hence requiring large build-ups making it effectively an even heavier aircraft. Is this true? If so, did you factor the weight of the extra fuel into the burn per kg.

Surely, the 380 is better than 1% more efficient than the 400 without extra weight from mandatory fuel or extra belly cargo. If not, the 748I is going to absolutely kill the A380 program.

Cheers,

cxorcist

[suntorytimo]

This thread sure is a good read,

I'm definitely sitting in cxorcist's corner.

[Eyes only]

dragon man,

I am not aware of Qantas taking off at MTOW out of SYD, as far as I understand gets to the MZFW well before MTOW. Even westbound I understand for Qantas is taking off 20t below MTOW.

Has Qantas declared a lower MTOW recently like they have done with other types to reduce Airservices Australia charges ?

If QF were to put the same interior into the 744 as the A380, its numbers were to be far worse. Premium seats can weigh as much as 150kg each, the 744 seat in F class in QF are 18 cm narrower and the seat pitch is 12 cm less than First on the A380. Business class on the A380 has a greater seat pitch than the First on the 744. In premium economy on the A380 passengers get a seat pitch in some cases over 1 m, even the normal economy seat is wider on the A380.

Even with higher density seating (i.e. smaller seats with a lower seat pitch) on the 744, they have 143 less seats than the A380 in 4 class configurations (307 vs 450 seats).

cxorcist

The A380 is certified for operations into 45m runways, just like the 744, however a lot of diversion ports do not have gates big enough for the aircraft, a stand off bay is required. Cathay use stand off bays from time to time at HKIA and it is a regular occurrence for schedule flights passenger services at a number of Cathay ports.

Qantas have diverted A380s into the Solomon Islands and Fiji without an issue.

I believe the 747-8 will be the longest commercial aircraft in service, the minimum turn radius of the 747-8 is 52m, the A380 is 50.9 m.

[Arfur Dent]

How refreshing to read a thread that is so informative and detailed. An interesting read especially regarding contributions of the two main exponents. Well done chaps! Keep it up.
Tyler's probably downloading it as we speak and challenging his highly paid 'experts'. I would - wouldn't you??? :D

[dragon man]

Mandatory reserves in Qf are the same for both aircraft. I hadnt thought about the seats and that is correct it would lower the usefull load if the 400 was refitted. Just a snippet of info, i paxed Lax/Syd in Feburary on duty travel and my bag was put on standby. When queried the checkin person remarked that at that time all staff bags went in a seperate container and were only uplifted if there was weight available after the fuel uplift. Dont know if thatts still the case. From my observations the 380 carries vertually no freight ex LAX with full paxs however the 400 gets about 4/5 tonnes with full paxs.

[Ex Cathedra]

It is my belief that if a 400 or any other aircraft had the new interior and good IFE it would have the same pax appeal.


IFE?

IFE in QF is what happens under the wings these days...
:E


*What? This thread was getting way too unbiased, civilized and informative for the FH forum...*

[dragon man]

I was wondering what happened to Arfur Daly. " very droll Terry"

[coolio]

In the latest news about Tony Tyler going to IATA there is a mention of CX possible getting the A380 to help with it's 11% expansion planned for next year. No mention of the 747-8 anymore. This is in line with the fact that Boeing has come back to CX with performance factors for the 747-8F that are way off target. CX not happy as they needed those numbers for there cargo expansion. CX is said to want the stretched A380. Hopefully with American donkeys instead of that R/R s**t that is giving everyone headaches.

[parabellum]

Coolio - Interesting stuff, can you give any references to back up your post?


This is in line with the fact that Boeing has come back to CX with performance factors for the 747-8F that are way off target. CX not happy as they needed those numbers for there cargo expansion. CX is said to want the stretched A380.


The above is serious 'management speak', are you management? To produce such definitive statements you must have been at a senior management meeting, surely?

[coolio]

Management? Oh no I think not. This is 100% third hand knowledge from a buddy who spoke to MH in the fleet office

[geh065]

I highly doubt you could get an A380 next year to help with 11% expansion!

[cxorcist]

It is conceivable that we could take another airline's 2011+ orders if they were looking to defer or cancel deliveries. Seems like it would be unlikely though.

As for the -8/380 debate, I think the critical issues are trip cost per square meter of floor space and the range capability to fly within the CX route structure carrying full load pax and cargo year-round.

Any more detail on the performance factors wrt the -8? I am curious about how bad the "miss" is. If the bird cannot make ANC with 135T of freight, I know it will be a disappointment.

[cxorcist]

Well, it looks as if the rumours about the -8 are true. It will not make HKG-ANC with 134T. The Boeing website has been changed. Whereas it used to show the -8 making it, it now depicts it coming up short of ANC. This is consistent with what I heard off the 3rd floor. They said it looks like about 125T to ANC. This is a definite disappointment and takes the -8I off the HKG-JFK route with full pax and cargo. They even hinted that CX would rather have purchased the 777F if this were known back when they ordered.

Perhaps the era of 4 engined aircraft will end sooner than we hoped. Without range and economics that compete with big twins, the downside risk during recessions is likely to limit their longterm viability in significant numbers.
:(:{

[Sir KDM Lowe]

Perhaps the era of 4 engined aircraft will end sooner than we hoped

I didn't know we were hoping that four jets would disappear. I quite like them.;)

[Bograt]

^^^ Me too.

[Eyes only]

"This is a definite disappointment and takes the -8I off the HKG-JFK route with full pax and cargo."

JFK in a -8I := never on the cards, LAX was even marginal.

[capt_einz11]

http://www.aerosocietychannel.com/aerospace-insight/2010/12/exclusive-qantas-qf32-flight-from-the-cockpit/

An interesting article about Qantas 32 out of Singas. Quite a nice read.

[cxorcist]

"JFK in a -8I never on the cards"

Once again, Eyes Only, you are incorrect. I had an in-person conversation with a director level executive in which we spoke about the -8I. They were most definitely looking at it for the JFK route. He said that they would be very interested in using for JFK if it could make the return with full pax, bags, and cargo. The fact that it cannot, he explained, makes the airplane much less attractive overall. Think about it, why would you not want to consider a larger aircraft when we are about to increase to 3 flights a day there? Of course the -8 should be considered.

And you accuse me of spreading "misinformation"...

BTW... Same director said the A380 is "a horrible airplane" and not being considered anymore despite what is being said publicly.

I still think the -8I has a chance to replace some -400s in CX (especially for the high density EUR routes), but the company will likely wait until they see how the freighter does and whether or not the plane has a chance to be made lighter before they make any commitments.

PS - I too like 4 engined airplanes!!!

[cxorcist]

Eyes Only,

One more thing...

"JFK in a -8I never on the cards, LAX was even marginal."

This statement shows your ignorance of common knowledge. Winter winds being what they often are, LAX-HKG and JFK-HKG have approximately the same flight times (or air mileage) despite JFK being further away in ground miles. So it really does not matter whether you take off from LAX or JFK with a fully loaded -8, it is going to be a nail-biter either way in the winter.

BR,

CXorcist

[Eyes only]

This statement shows your ignorance of common knowledge.

Not my ignorance at all. Boeing list "New York - Hong Kong" as one of the possible city pairs with 467 passengers with an allowance of 95kg/pax, i.e. a total payload of 44.5t. It does not include any baggage, catering, or cargo. The catering uplift on a sector like that would be around 5t.

The design range of the 747-8I is 8000 nm, that is with 467 passengers with an allowance of 95kg/pax, nothing else, no additional baggage, catering, or cargo. The maximum payload range of the 747-8I is around 2000 nm less.

The 747-8I could never do full pax, bags, and cargo over that distance, it was never on the cards. Anyone suggesting that to you is playing you, unless of course they are looking at a 4 class cabin of around 350 seats, then it could do 350 (full) pax and some cargo, however not full cargo.

A four class A380 would be configured with around 450 seats, and is capable of 450 pax and about 10t of cargo over JFK-HKG.

Qantas and Emirates are flying longer city pairs than JFK-HKG for some time, and Singapore Airlines have announced they will start flying the pacific using A380s is 2011.

Please advise me what "misinformation" I have been spreading ?

Was it this "The 747-8I has less range than the A380. The A380 is already exceeding fuel burn guarantees by a few percent, with more in the pipeline, the same cannot be said for the 747-8F which is at risk of missing them at the moment." as you are the one who is confirming it.

Also your comment Well, it looks as if the rumours about the -8 are true. It will not make HKG-ANC with 134T. sounds strange to many. When CX ordered them, the CX press release stated they were capable or 140 t over a HKG-ANC sector length, now you are claiming they are missing that by 15 t ?

That is what people in the Navy would call a small miss.

Cathay Pacific Cargo - News (http://www.cathaypacificcargo.com/usrapps/content/news/news.aspx?ID=20071109001)

[cxorcist]

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.

[Eyes only]

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.

[BusyB]

Eyes Only,

I understood from a Qantas pilot on this or another thread that the 380 couldn't take any cargo SYD-LAX and sometimes couldn't take all the pax baggage.:confused:

[cxorcist]

Eyes Only,

In the interest of not writing in circles, I will highlight the three main problems with the A380 and leave it for you to refute.

1) The A380 is heavy. 277T Base Operating Weight (BOW) divided by any number of realistic seating configurations is not competitive with other large aircraft being marketed today. Use the floor space divided by BOW for a better metric if you wish.

2) Since it is heavy, it is either range or payload restricted. I believe you underestimate the value of belly freight on ULH routes. CX is especially adept at putting high yield, express cargo in passenger bellies. A recent update indicated that 50% of our total cargo revenue is carried in passenger bellies. That is significant when you consider that we have a freighter fleet comprised of 23 -400Fs. Significant cargo restrictions on ULH routes because the A380 cannot carry pax, their bags, and cargo will not fly at CX.

3) The A380 is NOT a good recession airplane. Yes, I did twice read your reference to Singapore A380s in lieu of 773ERs on the CDG route. That is all well and good, but what happens if during the next downturn there is not enough traffic to fill the 380s on the property. They either fly and lose money OR they sit on the ground and lose money. CX is rather picky about always making money by being well positioned for the next downturn - unlike Emirates, Singapore, and some of the other state-sponsored A380 customers. Other airplanes such as the 77/87, A33/50, and even the -8I have less downside risk than the A380.

Have the last word, but try not to revert to the same talking points you have been parroting this whole time.

Regards,

CXorcist

PS - I would rather have GEnx that misses its SFC than a Trent 900 that beats it and then proceeds to put holes in the wings...http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Honestly guys...

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x55/francoflier/Fun%20stuff/give-a-damn.gif


Who cares about which aircraft CX will make me fly 105 hours a month with no overtime, no housing allowance, 4 G days a month, on a 1976 salary scale while I wait another 20 years for my command...

Even if they bought an aircraft that flies anything anywhere for free, they'd still claim that the cost of the electricity to vacuum the carpets is too volatile to risk giving the pilots a raise.

[SMOC]

Don't know where to find the article I read again, but Airbus has said an A380 built in a PAX configuration can NEVER be converted to a Freighter, the A380F was/is totally separate. So if considering re-sale as a freighter down the line forget it. It's not well known, I saw an interview where SIA think they'll convert their A380s to freighters in the future, it's not going to happen.

If I remember correctly the upper deck floor height is different and there are problems fitting the cargo doors to a pax A/C.

One of CXs problems with the A380 has always been the lack of VOLUME in the cargo hold once it's full of all the pax bags and the crew rest module.

Next time your flying any of the CX A/C on a long haul trip which has a full load of punters, ask the load control guy how many LD3s you have full of bags vs the space available for cargo.

If Airbus build a -900 then I think you'll see CX make a purchase.

Meanwhile I hope the -8I gets ordered as a stop gap but I doubt it.

[Eyes only]

cxorcist,

Your last post is full of emotion, I prefer to deal with facts.

The "spec" figures for the ratio you mentioned

777-300ER
Spec OEW = 175542 kg
Floor area = 330.4 m^2
OEW/area = 531 kg/m^2

A380-800
Spec OEW = 278800 kg
Floor area = 552.5 m^2
OEW/area = 504 kg/m^2

777-300ER has a 5% higher OEW/area ratio on spec weights, the A380 is providing 67% more floor area, however it is not 67% heavier.

The vast majority of the underfloor cargo on passenger aircraft is uplifted on regional/medium haul routes on 777s and A330s where it may cost as little as 30-40 kg extra fuel per tonne. These are typically routes that have multiple passenger services with no or an infrequent freighter service.

Reading between the lines, you would be a polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride -400 bellwether, and even a -400F/ERF aerialist. I will give you the benefit of doubt that you have actually taken an interest in the freighter load factors on from North America to Hong Kong. If a holy grail of high value freight was available originating in North America, the freighters would be filled first, like they are ex-Hong Kong. Cathay Pacific could not even secure the mail contract to Hong Kong.

Regarding the GEnx, it is also a relatively high risk engine, it is the first time GE has done a counter-rotating spool design on such a large engine. As you not doubt aware the Trent 800 (777) and the Trent 900 (A380) are very similar engine designs, sharing the same number of compressors and turbine stages and general engine layout. The engine efficiency improvements on the Trent 900 were largely obtained by utilising a counter-rotating spool. It was one of the rear bearings that is different from the Trent 800 due to the new design feature which has been postulated (not to pre-empt the ATSB investigation) to have cause the uncontained failure.

The GEnx has already had a number of changes to fix problems found in testing, this is no cause for alarm, it is part and parcel of product development. No doubt GE will also learn a lot more after their engines have been used on ULH routes for a period of time.

Rolls Royce has 5 decades of experience with the design, support, and maintenance of counter-rotating engines. They designed the Pegasus with counter-rotating spools to reduce the gyroscopic effects on the Harrier when it hovered. GE does not have that experience to fall back on, they are still learning to walk with the new technology, it will be interesting to see how the GEnx performs in the real world.

[airplaneridesrfun]

Pilot Jobs, Aviation Jobs, Aviation Employment, Career Fairs, Job Fairs (http://www.climbto350.com)

[Eyes only]

SMOC,

The A380 passenger aircraft will never be converted to an A380F, just like a 747-400 will never be converted to a 747-400F.

The A380P2F, like the 747-400BCF are converted passenger freighters. That sort of aircraft is not a true general freighter, it is however a volumetrically efficient package freighter.

Fedex has expressed interest in the A380P2F.

[cxorcist]

Eyes Only,

Excuse the reply. I realize I said I would let you have the last word, but your last post is hard to ignore. No emotion here, just a practical view of the economics which seem to be elusive for you scientific types.

With regard to the spec figures, do you realize you have made my point for me? Why would CX opt for a 5% improvement in floor area per tonne when you consider the all downsides - which are the inability to carry cargo ULH, the requirement to load a 450+ seater near full in order to make money on all but the highest yielding routes, the requirement to establish another aircraft type, the inability to fly into many of CX's regional Asian ports, etc??? You have not truly addressed the ULH cargo issue other than to write that it is not very important financially:=. Similarly, the A380 recession-proofing issue remains unaddressed other than to cite the Singapore/CDG example.

You need to understand that CX looks at maximizing return on investment in all market conditions before purchasing aircraft. 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.

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. Face the facts, the airplane is morbidly obese. Engineers (like yourself?) over promised and under-delivered (OPUD) wrt to weight. 234 orders is hardly a resounding affirmation when you consider that the aircraft has no true market competition in its size category.

Despite your attempt to disparage with your early "plastic" reference, I do appreciate the engine history review. I did not know most of what you wrote. 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.

With regard to RR/Trent and the counter-rotating technology, I would not be proud of the lessons from the Harrier. Those were learned through blood - some of it my colleagues' who fearlessly flew that disastrous design. Along those lines, I would say RR/Trent have a reputation for pushing the envelope too far. I seem to recall the A330 having significant engine issues in addition to those on the A380. Perhaps you can produce examples, but I do not recall GE, PW, or even CFM having similar teething issues in recent years. Also, the Engine Alliance (GE/PW) GP7200 is appearing to be a better engine for the A380 at this stage of the game.

I know you pocket-protector types like to look down your noses at pilots, but many of us are not the "Bakelite" idiots you like to think of us as. 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.

Now you can have the last word...

Cheers,

CXorcist

PS - The -400BCF is not a volumetrically efficient freighter, just ask CX. They do not like them and are trying to pawn off as many as possible as I write. Also, Fred Smith and FedEx will be interested in anything they think they can get their hands on cheaply. You should be worried that they are already eying the A380 for a P2F conversion. Notice their current fleet of retrofitted MD-10/11s, B757s, and B727s. Looking to join those ranks with the A380???

[SMOC]

Eyes only,

:ugh:

Do you work in aviation?

There will be no A380P2F.

[Eyes only]

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 ? :hmm:

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".