Wide body rumours (CX)

[SMOC]

Let the speculating begin....


Cathay Pacific CEO John Slosar tells Aviation Week the airline is evaluating the Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8 and expects to make a decision on whether to place an order for passenger variants in the first half of 2013.




Cathay Pacific Evaluating Widebody Needs (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_02_01_2013_p03-01-543373.xml)

[Flying Mechanic]

Well the 747-8 looks the coolest.....but the accountants will go with A380.

[nitpicker330]

It's down to how much money we can consistantly make with a reliable Airframe.

Boeing 747-8i is the clear winner on both counts.....

[White None]

but the accountants will go with A380.

Not if they know anything about Crit Points, Mandatory Fuel, RFF Category; so, yeah we'll probably get them :ok:

[Pucka]

Pax comfort wise..380 knocks the socks off the 8i....

[Steve the Pirate]

Pax comfort wise..380 knocks the socks off the 8i....

Serious question - have you travelled as a passenger on both?

STP

[Pucka]

Indeed I have questioning one...380 is both very quiet, at least in EY and pressurisation seems to be less noticeable. One has to ask..why is the 380 so popular?...and its not just a matter of accounting.

[bm330]

CX already operates the 747-8.

No pilot cross training.
No new mechanic quals.
Already own all the servicing equipment.

Of course the accountants will want the 380. Hopefully someone with a schmick of operatonal knowledge will actually be at the table.

[Steve the Pirate]

If we get either, I would have thought it'll come down to the whole package - engineering support, whether there's a simulator thrown in, engineering and aircrew courses and so on. Oh, and obviously the price. If the A380 package is more competitive, we'll get the A380. If it's the other way, then we'll get the 747-8i. Then again, I'm not an accountant.

If the decision were to be based solely on looks then the 747-8i would win hands down. The A380, sadly, has created a new category; the VUA - Very Ugly Aircraft :(

Pucka, thanks for the answer.

STP

[broadband circuit]

It's down to the accountants for sure.

The buzz is that another operator canceled/delayed an -8i order, so CX was straight in there with an ultra low offer.

More to the point, regardless of which type we get, considering the current crew shortage, who the f&%k is going to fly them????

[crwass]

CX is looking into a cross-crew-fleet MFFCCQ
whereby you can operate the supers only, but either type.

Just like current 330/340

And 3 crew ops as well. So with 3 pilots with both ratings each, it effectively means 6 pilots, so the crew shortage is solved straight away.

Simple maths.

I figure the Supermen will put their hands up.

Ass

[SubsonicMortal]

Is that trim tank fuel being unusable on the 8i still an issue? I'd assume that any operator considering a choice between the two types are looking for range and passenger numbers. I'd say the 380 beats the 8i by a long shot. Not to mention that ride comfort out of pilot and passenger point of view is unbeatable.

[VR-HFX]

The financial numbers will win.

For me the great relief of not transitting PX terminals may be clouding my fast receding memory BUT the 8 is a winner.

Commercially I have a flown the 707, Tristar, 747-200/400, 777, 330/340 and the 747-800.

And the winner is 747/8

If Slosar doesn't go with Lufthansa and choose this as the next heavy lifter then he should stop pretending to be a Brit.

[AtoBsafely]

Subsonic,

What is the full fuel of an A380 and 747-8 without a stab tank?

What is the still air range of each starting at MTOW?

Honest questions. Thanks.

[flyingkiwi]

But why is Lufthansa the only carrier to order the -8 when every one else has gone for the 380, then look at SIA, if the aircraft was so bad why have they just ordered 20 more, I agree with the comment about airframes at the end of their life, the numbers stack up for the 380 even now when you are comparing the -8 with its new generation engines when the 380 is still running old generation engines, imagine the savings when they put the gen x engines onto the 380, which I'm sure will happen once they have got the 350 launched.

[jettison valve]

Good evening everyone,

I have seen a forecast from Boeing to activate the 747-8i tail tank late in 2013 / early 2014 (connect some plumbing, adjust flight control software, and - if I am not mistaken - some rework of the outboard pylons / pylon fairings at least on the older aircraft).

Stay tuned... :-)

Regards, J.V.

[fire wall]

Question 1. : Of all the A380 operators (current A380 operators Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qantas, Air France, Lufthansa, Korean Air, China Southern, Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways.) who operates the a/c exclusivelyon ULH sectors?
As far as I know only QF and as a result of Crit points, mand fuel and RFF enroute (as white none correctly alluded) they land in LAX with approx 50 T sloshing around in the tanks.

Question 2: What is the cost of 50T of "dead weight" in fuel burn for the next 20 years of projected operation, or for that matter 50T loss of payload?

Question 3: If to be used on HKG NAM routes, on an eastbound sector what is the next airport after Chitose that could be filed as a Critical point pair?

Question 4: If it is to be used on EUR route structure, on a west bound sector what is the next critical point pair after Hong Kong?

Question 5: Is CX looking for an ULH a/c ?

[donpizmeov]

I call BS on the 50T landing fuel into LAX. The 380 is a Cat F aircraft, the same as the 748. Any Cat F airfield will do. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Don

[fire wall]

Don, I agree the 50T issue has become a bit of folk law.
Will ring a QF buddy and see if he can advise.

[SMOC]

What is the full fuel of an A380 and 747-8 without a stab tank?

744F - 163T
744 - 173T
748 - 184T without stab, 194T with.

A380 - 252T

[Sqwak7700]

As far as I know only QF and as a result of Crit points, mand fuel and RFF enroute (as white none correctly alluded) they land in LAX with approx 50 T sloshing around in the tanks.

Clearly inaccurate. The last ERA on the way to LA from the West / South West is HNL. There is nothing else, and HNL is able to handle the 380. There is no other non-380 suitable airport in between which would require one type to carry more than another. Sure, some of the smaller Hawaiian airports are a bit closer, but not by 50Ts, we are talking a couple tons at max.

The only real issue I could see is the cargo carrying capacity. You have the same cargo carrying space but two full decks of passengers. this clearly means less space for all the bags, and even less space for revenue cargo. But cargo has weakened substantially, they cry about it every Friday.

[bm330]

The only aircraft that are carrying less freight are the freighters. Every time a 777 takes off on long haul, it's got several tons along with all those bags. Not unusual to have 15 to 17 tons from N.A.

[Frogman1484]

You have it all wrong...The typical decision model is to ask every department their input and then go with the cheapest product!:ok:

[geh065]

But why is Lufthansa the only carrier to order the -8 when every one else has gone for the 380,


Actually a few other airlines have ordered the 747-8i like Korean and Air China as well as (I believe) Arik Air of Nigeria although I doubt they will ever take delivery.

then look at SIA, if the aircraft was so bad why have they just ordered 20 more

Our own CEO has stated that he personally wonders about SQ's strategy of buying so many A380s and said words to the effect of "I wonder if he (SQ's CEO) regrets buying so many A380s."

[Frogman1484]

What about EK. I guess they are wrong too!:ugh:

[geh065]

Emirates have a different strategy to SQ so they can't really be compared in the same way. I don't think he meant to say that everyone regrets buying A380s....just SQ.

[flyingkiwi]

He can't regret it, SIA just ordered more

[Frogman1484]

The only airline that regrets buying the A380 is QF. Then again they think the 777 is the wrong aircraft for them!

Maybe HKG express might also fall in this camp!

[Captain Dart]

...and the geniuses running the QANTAS group also ordered the 787 :hmm:.

So: what's it to be for CX? The warmed-over Boeing that no-one else wants (so must be going real cheap) but doesn't have the passenger appeal, or the 'Dugong', popular with the 'punters', but reputedly doesn't have the payload/range for CX, and can't carry the freight?

As much as I am an Airbus fan, I find the words 'cheap' and 'Cathay Pacific' synonymous, and my bet's on the Boeing. On the face of aggressive orders for the 380 from SQ and the middle east, CX have probably missed the boat on any cheap offerings or early introduction into service for the Dugong.

Anyhoo, if a previous post is correct, J.S. seems to know what's good for other airlines, so I'm sure he'll make the right decision for CX...won't he?

[maggot]

the only regrets in QF for the '80 is from the rusted on 744 guys that are holding on too tight. The Flying Vagina (ugly on the outside but bloody comfortable inside) is incredibly popular with the punters, so much so they are making our 744 interiors look the same and marketing it as the 'a380 experience', on a 747... :rolleyes:
depending on the route taken, usually about 17-18t o/head LAX, usual arrival weights, ~11t/hr holding for that.
Newly config'd ac have nearly 500 seats with many premium, you just have to fill em... (which lately we've been doing)
Yes, ops are pretty restrained by many airfields unable to accommodate but that's not too much of a problem for our little airline only flying to a handful of destinations :{

[Taildragger67]

every one else has gone for the 380, then look at SIA, if the aircraft was so bad why have they just ordered 20 more

SIA have ordered 5 additional A380s (http://www.singaporeair.com/jsp/cms/en_UK/press_release_news/ne121024.jsp), not 20.

They ordered 20 A350s at the same time.

One question might be, how many A350s might Airbus throw in to sweeten the deal?

[Honkozzie]

Hmmm,

so let's see. That will be...count 'em:
A330 (no replacement as yet, and a true workhorse)
A340 For the next coupla' years at least, (Dammit!)until the:
A350 (One day....)
B777 (no replacement as yet, also a true workhorse)
B747 400 pax and freight for the next coupla' years at least, they will still have to keep some running until the freight operation is at full 'dash eight and triple seven size, and a VLA is chosen and up to strength.
B747-8 freighters
...and now an A380 fleet of some minimum size to justify its set up/engineering costs et al...? (I'm told a minimum of 10 airframes to justify, but I'm happy to be corrected)
So...
7 types, effectively, short term, settling down to maybe 4 or 5.

I know there will be some phasing out and overlap, so that fleet size won't be permanent, but still...an awful lot of extra load on engineering and training for this little old carrier.

I just can't see CX running that many incongruent types. (Ansett anyone?)To that end, I would've thought the B747-8i was a shoe-in, for all the reasons mentioned on this thread.

Which is NOT to say I believe it is the best long term solution to the capacity/slot problems of the future, but I think the build slots on the A380 pretty much belong to EK for the forseeable future, and CX just don't like spending money on big aeroplanes if they can help it. (We didn't get our first B747 until 1979!) Especially when we've already said it won't quite do what we want it to in terms of freight and range. Management want the MK2 version, but I think that is a long way off...

Interesting times. I, for one, await the evaluation and final choice, if there is one, with much interest. Either way, sidestick or yoke, I'll fly it!

[betpump5]

Regardless of the numbers regarding 747-8i vs A380 vx 777x, I think the wrong question is being asked here.

The main legacy carriers in SE Asia (our competition) and Emirates are using A380. Passengers do like them. To the uneducated, the A380 is the new 747 flying. The major airlines want to be seen flying the newest and the best because that does attract passengers,

Can Cathay Pacific afford NOT to have an A380?

[TSIO540]

I am lead to believe that HKIA only has a few gates capable of handling the A380 which raises the question of where they'll park in HK..?

[bm330]

Passengers are attracted by how much the ticket price is. Most pax couldn't tell the difference between aircraft if you handed them a picture.

[cxorcist]

What bm330 wrote is exactly right. Most passengers don't know one airplane from another. Many of the frequent flyers / corporate customers paying high fares do note the difference however. I've heard there have been complaints about the 777 on the LHR route. Many of the 1st class whales will only fly on the -400. It is hard to beat walking onboard and turning left to an exclusive and private space. Similarly, business class upstairs (despite higher noise levels) has an exclusive feel to it that passengers like.

I'm sure the A380 is a sweet ride, and there is no doubt passengers love it. But the -8 is a very nice ride as well. There is no question in my mind that a well done interior on the -8I would have no trouble competing with an A380 both in terms of passenger appeal and economics for CX.

Ultimately, the notion that CX will end up choosing A380s seems highly unlikely at this stage. This is not to say it couldn't happen in the future, but for now the down side risks on the A380 are significant. There is very little risk for CX buying the -8I. The logistics are already set up, and the airline knows it can deploy them profitably within the current route structure / marketplace.

[cx252]

stick with 777s, CX simply can not afford A380.

[mr Q]

Just curious .... What is nearest diversion alternative to HK that can accept A380 ?

[SMOC]

VMMC is not a planned alternate for the -8 at the moment.

[cxorcist]

Well I don't know about the others, but VMMC cannot be filed as a -8 alternate although it can take them in an emergency. So I find it unlikely that VMMC can be filed as an A380 alternate. Where are you getting your information?

[SMOC]

The point being CX doesn't use the closest alternate therefore has to flight plan for extra fuel, thus the same problem for the A380 or possibly worse seeing pax are involved.

But in the usual way of CX they'll discover this problem after the A/C arrive.:E

[Threethirty]

Typical, EK have had these damn machines for 3 years now but we're still bitching and fighting and hypothecating about damn alternates. Just ask somebody in Emirates what they use for HKG. We'll never get the A380 anyway, we'll end up getting clapped out 747-8's and lose ground to all the others.

[broadband circuit]

Looking at it (hopefully) objectively, it seems on the surface that the current variant of the 380 is a good "10 hour" aircraft, in that any destination further away than 10 hrs starts to run into limitations.

I would guess that 90% of EK's destinations are within 10 hrs of DXB, hence their big fleet of 380s. Same for SQ, most of their 380 destinations are with 10hrs of SIN.

I would guess that the sort of destinations CX are considering for the 380 or -8i are probably a little more than 10 hrs (LHR, Nth Am)

What is the optimum/maximum unlimited range of the -8i? Who knows.

What will be the optimum/maximum unlimited range of newer variants of the 380? Who knows.

[SubsonicMortal]

Looking at it (hopefully) objectively, it seems on the surface that the current variant of the 380 is a good "10 hour" aircraft, in that any destination further away than 10 hrs starts to run into limitations.

EK flies the 380 on daily 14 hour (+) ULR flights and manage to fill them up with hardly a seat left open:

DXB - SYD
DXB - MEL
DXB - JFK
DXB - YYV (not daily due to Canadian restrictions)

Typical, EK have had these damn machines for 3 years now

Emirates received their first A380 in July 2008. At the moment the Emirates A380 fleet stands at 31. There will be 17 A380 deliveries to Emirates between January 2013 and December 2013.

It's a good aircraft. CX would be foolish not to seriously consider this type above the 8i.

[cxorcist]

Emirates has a drastically different business model and route structure from CX. Emirates is a hub and spoke carrier throughout the eastern hemisphere with some N&S America services. CX is an O&D airline with the hub being a regional connection point, but the primary traffic being to/from Hong Kong. It's easier to fill an A380 when connecting traffic between 6 continents. CX does not do this to the same extent. This is not a aircraft size issue, but a geographic limitation.

Another major difference is cargo revenues. CX relies much more on belly cargo as a significant proportion of revenue than does Emirates. Whether it is correct or not, CX does not think the A380 offers sufficient belly cargo with a full load of passengers. I've heard this straight from the Director of Cargo's lips. Of course, he is not known for being the most honest person, but it sounds reasonable. Two decks of passengers produces a lot more baggage containers than does a single deck or even a 747. A stretch version of the A380 does nothing to change this.

The third reason CX seems unlikely to operate the A380 is the airline's high frequency model. Rather than try to convince you, please refer to the CEO's comments about the 5th daily LHR service on another FH thread. It's not rocket science. CX benefits hugely from offering multiple daily flights to all its major destinations for corporate and walk-up passengers. It also helps generate express cargo revenues.

All of this to say nothing of the cost side of the equation? CX is probably the most cost-conscience airline in the world. As such, it's hard to imagine them setting up full infrastructure for yet another aircraft type, especially when a viable (if not better) option is already set-up. The risks associated with running unfilled A380s around are massive. It's so much easier to just cut a frequency during a downturn than to have A380 capacity running around (or sitting around) unfilled draining the coffers.

[donpizmeov]

Not sure its fair to compare the 748 with the 380, as they seem to be for different markets. The 362 seats LH has on its 748 would suggest it would be useful as a 773ER replacement on flights over 10hrs where the 773 becomes limited.

EK 380s will carry 66T (499 seats on this one, DOW on newer ones can be 1t lighter) for 14hrs on the 569t MTOW ones, or 74T (520 seats on this one, newer DOWs also lighter) for 10hrs on the 510T MTOW. Its not uncommon to be lifting max zero fuel wait to and from JFK, SYD and MEL for the heavy weight ones and over 70Ts out of LHR for the light weight ones.

If you want to carry 500 people in a three class config there is only one aeroplane available, if you only need to carry 300 to 360 you would go for the Boeings.

The Don

[China Flyer]

Smart post, Don. Probably no room on PPrune for that sort of behaviour!!



From the another thread dealing with the 5th service to LHR, Ben Sandilands says this:

And if Hong Kong traffic continues to grow CX is also going to need A380 daily flights to Sydney to add to the seats now flown by four A330s.

[SMOC]

From the another thread dealing with the 5th service to LHR, Ben Sandilands says this:

Quote:
And if Hong Kong traffic continues to grow CX is also going to need A380 daily flights to Sydney to add to the seats now flown by four A330s.


How many extra seats would 4 daily A350s bring?

[Frogman1484]

The one that makes least sense!:ok:

[SMOC]

Lots of -8 slots available favoring some quick deliveries?

Boeing warns about unclaimed 747-8 production slots (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-warns-about-unclaimed-747-8-production-slots-382245/)

[Frogman1484]

...but it is such a great airplane...! I wonder if the 380 has the same issue?

[treboryelk]

Airbus didnt seem too concerned last year!

Industry sources suggest Boeing's aggressive marketing of the 747-8I has been hampering Airbus's efforts to achieve better pricing on new A380 deals. Leahy denies this. "Not at all," he said. "If you give away a dog, it's still a dog."

[Frogman1484]

I just think that if the airlines love it as much as our Pprune boeing fans, then it should be flying of the shelves...excuse the pun!

[VR-HFX]

As someone who has time on type, the 747-8 is a gem. It's the 744 with grunt.:ok:

[treboryelk]

Is it really that good? Perhaps you could share some of that time on type experience with us so we can have a better understanding of why it would be so much better than the 380.

[Cavallier]

As someone who has time on type, the 747-8 is a gem. It's the 744 with grunt.:ok:

And an annoyingly placed hand mike!!!

[Eau de Boeing]

To answer some questions above I also have some experience on the 380/Sarah Jessica Parker and having flown other Boeing's as well as the 330 I can say that it is the Mutts Knutts. As Don alluded to earlier we regularly lift max payload both on ULR and LR sectors and on our last HKG sector we didn't have a spare seat onboard.

To answer the fuel question we do not use Macau, however Guangzhou is the normal alternate and if the situation dictates we can carry enough fuel in excess for BKK, SIN et al.

Don't get me wrong the 777 does have it's uses in EK, the Keralan travelling community love it.....:ok:

[cxorcist]

Eau,

Do you mind sharing what the empty weights (BOW) of EK's A380s are? Can you determine from your load sheets how much in the belly holds are pax/crew bags vs cargo on one of those full flights? Does EK typically run the A380s full? How do the load factors compare to other aircraft types in the EK fleet? Very curious...

Cheers,
CXorcist

[donpizmeov]

CX,

DOWs are around the 300T mark, some newer ones done to 297T. Other figures are TOW 569T, ZFW 366T, MLW 391T or TOW 510T, ZFW 373, MLW 395T.

Loads always seem full, but then so does most of the flights over the whole network. We only get PAX weight on the load sheet, this does not include bags. But office dewellers plan on 120kg per seat as they say this takes into account M,F,C and premium seat extra luggage.

Its all a bit academic though, as there is no other aeroplane to compare it to, as nothing else carts around 500 pax in a three class config.

the Don

[cxorcist]

So let me get this right, the A380 weighs 300T? My God, that is a huge number! All that to carry 65-70T. The 777-300ER regularly carries 50T, yet it only weighs 170T-ish. So to put this into perspective, the MZFW of the A380 is as high as 23% revenue. The MZFW 777 is up to 30% revenue. That is a big difference. Granted, the 777 weight has a higher percentage of cargo. Is that worth more or less than a higher percentage passenger load? I suppose it depends on the airline and the specific route. Given CX's perpencity towards frequency and cargo, it's not hard to figure out why the Swires have been lukewarm on Airbus' super jumbo.

[Freehills]

Yep, a double deck four engined aircraft is an inherently inefficient design compared to a twin engine widebody. Low seat mile costs come purely from being big, rather than being clever

[donpizmeov]

If your worried about size and weight CX, shouldn't we all be flying the 737? A whole lot lighter than the 777 and carries almost as much. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense does it, as they are designed to do different things.

As I said, if you only want to carry 300 to 360 people you would go for the Boeing, if you want to carry 500 you only have a 380. Hence comparing the 748 to a 777 would be a good comparison as it is not a 380 replacement.

We put five 380s a day into LHR. That's equivalent to 7.5 of our 773ers, how much does that save per day in lease costs, slot costs, crew costs etc etc.

I do agree with you though as the 777 is a very good freighter. It just happens that the 380 is very good at carrying pax. The on board showers and bar area seem to go down a treat.

The Don

[cxorcist]

Freehills,

I think you are correct about that. The -8I struggles in the same way, but to a lesser extent since the upper deck is narrower and shorter. Doing the same math on the -8I reveals that it carries about 26-27% revenue as a percentage of MZFW. It is smack dab in the middle between the 777 and the A380, right where you would expect it to be.

So the question becomes twofold: Does CX want to sacrifice big twin efficiency for the prestige / product offering associated with the quads? And does CX take an incremental / slightly less glamorous step with the -8I? Or does it make a larger / more risky / more glamorous A380 investment?

Knowing the market and the Swires, it's not hard to figure out that it will be the -8I or nothing.

[cxorcist]

Don,

A 737 carries "almost" 50T like a 777? Really? And how far does it carry it? What planet are you living on? I think the sand down there is finding its way into your brain. You might want to have that checked out...

As for showers and bars, I'd only be excited about those if I could use them. Since you can't use either, I might be more concerned about not being credited for my time spent in the bunk if I were you.

[donpizmeov]

Oh dear cx, didn't mean to upset you. As the 737 is to the 77, the 777 is to the 380. Case rested.
Not sure where you get your info from son, but your knowledge of our ops would seem to be as flawed as your knowledge of , well everything really. Never mind, you do seem to have a thing with math. Good for you.

The Don

[Frogman1484]

Well said Don. Well explained thoughts. I agree with your reasoning.

Buy the way cx...your a dick,so typical of you to start insulting people when they have better reasoning than your em..er...ug 747-8 is...er goodly...ugh!!!:mad:

[Steve the Pirate]

so typical of you to start insulting people

Surely we all know by now that cxorcist has a perpencity [sic] for doing that just as much as I have propensity for disliking apawling speeling and gramer :)

STP

[SMOC]

Maybe more 777s instead.

Boeing appears confident about launching folding wing 777X | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/14/us-boeing-777x-idUSBRE91D05C20130214)

[Arfur Dent]

Beat me to it STP. Anywun who spells like cx can't be bovvered so why should we listen to him?

[GTC58]

According to the presentation Boeing made late last year at CX city to sell 12 B747-8i to CX the -8i has a slightly lower cost per seat mile then the 777-300ER on routes like HKG-JFK and similar.

[geh065]

According to the presentation Boeing made late last year at CX city to sell 12 B747-8i to CX the -8i has a slightly lower cost per seat mile then the 777-300ER on routes like HKG-JFK and similar.

Based on what assumptions? A full passenger load for starters I guess?

[GTC58]

Obviously cost per seat mile is cost per seat, per mile. Of course it is based on a full airplane. Otherwise it is not possible to compare cost between aircraft types for a specific route. Profitability is determined by load factor, ticket prices and resulting yield.

Cost per seat mile includes all type specific costs like capital cost, maintenance, reserves, fuel burn, crewing, training and many more. I am sure Boeing disclosed in their sales pitch how they came up with their numbers.

[nitpicker330]

Let me see..........

Trust Airbus's promises with regards to performance or trust Boeing????

Mmmmm difficult decision.:D


BOEING DELIVER.:ok: ( with regards to performance predictions, ok.. )

[Flap10]

BOEING DELIVER.

I'm quite certain ANA and a few other operators would disagree with you.

[cxorcist]

Fellow Harbour Dwellers,

Your name calling and petty criticisms of spelling and grammar only serve as evidence that you do not have substantive counter arguments, or that you are too lazy to explain them if you do. It's so typical these days to attack the person rather than debate the topic. Perhaps we can avoid that in the future.

For Don, I owe an apology for an insulting post. I had a few glasses of wine along with that one and should never have sent it. I did not pick up on the intended parallel between the 737/777 and the 777/380 as I should have. I still think it is a silly comparison, but I do see the point.

For the record I think the A380 is a fabulous airplane for Emirates and those airlines with similar business models, just not for Cathay (or Qantas for that matter). I have no doubt that it is lovely inside, certainly better than any 777 and perhaps more than a -8I could ever hope to be. Be that as it may, we all know there is a lot more to aircraft purchase decisions than the product offering inside the cabin, and there is little doubt that CX passengers in both F and J classes would be very happy in either a well appointed -8I or A380.

[Frogman1484]

Cx good recovery:D nice to have your coments again.

:ok:

[Steve the Pirate]

Your name calling and petty criticisms of spelling and grammar only serve as evidence that you do not have substantive counter arguments, or that you are too lazy to explain them if you do. It's so typical these days to attack the person rather than debate the topic. Perhaps we can avoid that in the future.

Firstly, that should be 'counter-arguments' or 'counterarguments'. :)

Secondly, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it because by criticising a person for lacking what you deem to be a substantive argument you are, by definition, attacking the person.

Finally, I've always understood 'we' to mean 'all of us'. Why do I get the distinct impression you wanted to write "Perhaps you can avoid that in the future."? :}

STP

[nitpicker330]

Wrong, with respect to performance figures they deliver as promised whereas Airbus are notorious for not delivering.

Yes the 787 is grounded and ANA etc are suffering ( Boeing will compensate them ) but the 787 is exceeding performance predictions as are the 748f we operate in CX. Entry into service teething problems are common for ALL types.

Inflight Performance is what we were talking about wasn't it? .:ok:

[Frogman1484]

I think that the 787is more than teething problems. I think the way the whole project was mamnaged from the start was a bit sub par for Boeing.

I must also add that the 380 is also doing very well at airline like EK, SIN and a few others, so in the right route and destination it would also do well at CX.

[donpizmeov]

Fair play to ya CX.

The Don

[SOPS]

Best thread shift so far this year:ok:

[Bear Trapp]

cargolux refused to accept the 8F due to weight problems and it also didn't meet promised fuel burn specifications

[cxorcist]

STP,

If I were a shrink, I might conclude that your relentless attempts to marginalize and exasperate are the symptoms of deep-seeded inadequacy, probably dating back to your childhood and a parental relationship. So while it may not mean much coming from me, I would nevertheless like to tell you that you have a brilliant, well educated mind; and I have no doubt that you are an extremely knowledgeable and skilled operator of commercial aircraft. I'm sure you have feathered your financial nest well in your time at CX. Well done! You have nothing more to prove. Seriously. This is not a sarcastic personal attack.

[Frogman1484]

Cx have you been drinking again?:{

[LGB]

After they finish playing both brand A and B to death, like it was two stalls in ladies market, I think they will get both.

The -8Is are ready to go, both wrt deliveries as well as company setup (from -8F). They can start on a shorter notice, to take over where the -400 is retired, effectively within a year should be realistic.

The 380 will take a while to get delivered, and needs to be setup in the company first. This will work on a longer scale, maybe 5-8 years from now. London and some other slot limited airports with growth potential would be the target, whereas NA should be -8I.

My bet is 10 A380 and 15-25 -8I by 2020 - who says we can't get both?

[Steve the Pirate]

cxorcist

I'm replying as to do otherwise would be rude.

Me

Finally, I've always understood 'we' to mean 'all of us'. Why do I get the distinct impression you wanted to write "Perhaps you can avoid that in the future."?

You

If I were a shrink, I might conclude that your relentless attempts to marginalize and exasperate are the symptoms of deep-seeded inadequacy, probably dating back to your childhood and a parental relationship.

QED. You argue my case far more persuasively than I could; a thinly disguised attack on me and my parents in one sentence - bravo!

By the way, it should be 'deep-seated' not 'deep-seeded' :}

Now, back to farts...

Have a nice day.

STP

[China Flyer]

What would be really funny is we all turned up to the gay bar one night wearing name badges with our pprune handles!

How long before the first punch was thrown?

[donpizmeov]

Just don't throw peanuts.

The Don

[AsiaMiles]

There are 16 A380 that will come off the production line in the right timeframe for CX that were cancelled by an Indian and a Hong Kong airline.

[GTC58]

CX business model is based on the premium class traveller. As such the size of the aircraft is rather secondary. Economy fares contribution to the bottom line is very small. The effect on 100 more economy seats per airplane is rather insignificant in terms of profits. Especially if yields drop due to flooding the market with a large capacity increase.

JFK, LHR and LAX are ports which have been identified to support a larger aircraft with associated growth in the premium classes.

As such the number of very large wide body aircraft CX ever will operate is rather limited.

IMHO