B748i or A380 order?

[fly123456]

Already day 3 at Le Bourget air show and still no order for CX.

What's the latest rumour?

[crwkunt roll]

Neither. Both have 4 engines. CX don't want 4 engines. 787-1000 and 777-900/100 by 2016. There's a rumour.

[LapSap]

Neither. Both have 4 engines. CX don't want 4 engines.

Hmmm. Think again. Think slot constrained airport beyond about 2017 and no third runway til 2023.
Like the last days of Kai Tak. Average seats per movement rose to 214.
Lots of 73s and 320s running around at the moment. Watch the big boys return as flights consolidate.ear
Average Number of Passengers
per Passenger Flight Movement
1993 209
1994 204
1995 210
1996 214
1997 198
1998 194 (New airport opened on 6th July, 1998)
1999 203
2000 208
2001 189
2002 191
2003 174
2004 185
2005 186
2006 191
2007 196
2008 194
2009 196
Source: CAD (1993-1996), AAHK (1997-2009

[SMOC]

Cathay Pacific still is considering an order for either the Airbus A380 or the Boeing 747-8, but no decision is imminent, the airline’s CEO John Slosar tells Aviation Week.

Cathay for several months has been saying that it was weighing whether to order one of the competing large widebody passenger aircraft, and Slosar previously indicated that a decision could be made in the first half of this year. However, the decision “is going to drag on longer than that,” Slosar said at a Oneworld alliance event during the International Air Transport Association’s annual general meeting in Cape Town.

“We’ve done some work, but we’re not at the point that would lead to a decision,” says Slosar. He notes that the carrier is keeping in touch with what the manufacturers are doing with these programs, and “if the right opportunity came along we would take a look.”

One thing Cathay is considering is how the large widebodies would fit in its network. “We could easily deploy them, we have the routes,” Slosar says. However, the tricky part would be integrating them with the rest of the schedule. “We’re not delaying, we’re just getting to it and working it through,” he says.

Slosar notes that Cathay already has a large number of widebodies on order, such as Airbus A330s and A350s, as well as Boeing 777s, so the carrier is “not in a huge rush to do anything else at the moment.”

Regarding the proposed Boeing 777X range, Slosar says it is an aircraft that Cathay will look at closely. The carrier is one of the world’s largest operators of 777-300ERs, “and we like the type,” he says.

Cathay Still Contemplating Fleet Decision (http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/avd_06_04_2013_p06-02-584599.xml)

Don't expect any orders at Paris.

[Kasompe]

Other airlines are already well along the way operating them, but CX is STILL looking into it.....:ugh:
Way to miss the boat, CX.:ok:

[sos]

“We’re not delaying, we’re just getting to it and working it through,” he says!

This a quote from the Aviation week as per SMOC .

Sounds like the way CX does business with all including its employes !

Bases
SHP
Housing
Etc etc

:D

[crwkunt roll]

Way to miss the boat, CX.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif
If it's not a money maker, then CX is not interested. So, they haven't missed a boat.

[Kasompe]

Crw....
Everyone else is making money with them and ordering more.
Everyone else is moving into new markets and opening up a broader revenue base, ie Africa and South America, etc.
Cathay has been missing boats for years, and makes money in spite of itself, not because of any particularly gifted management style or ability.
:ok:

[nitpicker330]

Actually no, the A380 isn't liked by Airline accountants.

Only the PR department and some Pax like it.

[main_dog]

And, er... EK seems to not mind them. :}

[cxorcist]

And since CX's business model is so similar to EK's, CX should have them too.

Right?

[Threethirty]

The airline accountants are prone to telling the odd person or two what they think of the 380. :uhoh: I'm sure the accountants run EK just as much as they do in CX so they're ordering the 380 because it makes financial sense.

[White None]

Haven't we been thru this before? Examine the No. of ERAs on most of EKs routes then consider our Pacific routings, PASY, PHNL, Russia etc. it's been done on a past thread if anyone's bothered.

[swh]

If it is not possible, how is China Southern flying Guangzhou and Los Angeles now ? how is BA going to fly London Hong Kong ?

Could it just be the previous posters had an axe to grind ?

[Pucka]

look..Nitpicker330 knows stuff all about how accountants think or post between themselves, unless of course he's a bean counter himself in some diabolicle corner of a legacy or pseudo legacy airline. Bottom line here..the 380 is working people and CX have missed their boat. The pro line is blocked for orders until 2017 FGS...and that 747/8 thing can't even cut it. Cx is doomed to reduce its brief into higher frequency, lower volume markets and sadly can't even exploit the latter. Where is it with the African market??..like nowhere!! The sandpit yields are minimal but they stay in the circus through route politics. Niche markets have never been forte but even then, Madrid, Munich, Zurich..again and Manchester should have been mainstream by now. Its a sham and the Skytrash figures, as much as they are propped up by incentives etc..are setting the trend..ie..down.

[GTC58]

CX's business model at the moment focuses on premium traffic, first and business class. Not sure if the A380 or B747-8i will fit the model. There is only so many first and business class seats you can fill per flight. Y class yield is very small, so why go that way ???

[jetset]

It mighten happen overnight, but it will happen. :ok:

[Threethirty]

Why go that way? Because you'll lose Business and First passengers to other carriers if you don't, making the Cathay is only a premium airline mantra rather a moot point! :ugh:

[donpizmeov]

How many premium do you carry per flight, We carry 14 first and 76 business per flight (380) at EK.

The don

[nitpicker330]

Exactly my point, you carry only 30 odd more premium pax in your big 380 that weighs around 200 tonnes MORE than our 777 and you think it makes better business sense. Not only that we carry lots of cargo at the same time AND burn a LOT less fuel.


That's why CX's accountants DON'T WANT IT.

The PR people on the other hand.......maybe we will be forced into buying it just because everyone else has?

[donpizmeov]

You are absolutely correct nitpicker. It does only carry 14 1st compared to your 777s 6 and only 76 compared to the 53. And it does burn more fuel.

A trip to LHR using cx website lowest sector prices available of HKD 9500 for Y class HKD56910 for J and HKD 92500 for 1st looks like this:
extra 6 in first = HKD740000
extra 23 in J = HKD 1308930
extra 166 in Y = HKD1577000
total= HKD3625930 or USD 467853

This is the extra on a return flight, so the 380 would burn about 110t fuel extra on that so reduce the extra amount by USD110000, so only an extra USD 357853 for the same slot/crew etc costs. The 380 would only be carrying about 17t of cargo per sector so you could reduce that by whatever extra cargo the 777 can carry.
Now when fuel gets to USD 4250 per 1000kgs it will only make as much as a 777, so I can see your concern here.
No wonder EK is taking those poor old 777s off the ULR flights and replacing it with the 380, how could they afford not to?:}

The Don

[gipilot]

WHO GIVES A S*&T.........We've got Bigger Problems.

Both machines make less money than the 777 and the A350XWB. For any of the A380 fans out there, the only reason Emirates has them is because they NEED them, we are in passenger numbers for now and the future nothing compared to these Middle Eastern Carriers, NOTHING. FUEL IS NOTHING to them. As for the Eu carriers.....REALLY....You think THEY built it and they won't use it???It's a European pride thing. Even if it does not make business sense they would still do it, I mean look at the Concorde.....Moneymaker??????

As the 747-8i. Well...........The total order numbers says it all.Boeing might as well just shut the production down for the -8i

As for the guys that believe in Cargo. If you're ever in a Big cargo station like DXB,PVC or even FRA, just take the time and ask any of the handlers how much the Middle Eastern Carriers charge per kilo. You will understand that with half our rates there is no way we can compete against these people therefore buying a machine just to carry MORE freight makes no sense whatsoever. The middle Eastern Carriers have 99 problems but fuel ain't one.

I hate to say it to our fellow aviators but unfortunately the beancounters have it right and NO we haven't missed out on any boat. Unfortunately people want cheap tickets(that's why we need them beancounters), it boils down to that, and only the ME carriers can provide that with unnecessary equipment and equipment of luxury, so WE need to make money by saving. I'm sure someone else will splash on everything I've just said but at the end you'll see, it's ALL ABOUT THE $$$.

And I don't give a S!&T what we fly as long as they pay the salaries and all allowances. A fleet of Cessna 172's I say.

Peace Out.

[nitpicker330]

Wow if it's that good CX must really be dumb....:D

[geh065]

You're all assuming the A380 would fly full loads all the time, which agreed, it would make more money than the 777 on a per flight basis.

...however, the 380 costs a lot more to purchase. Do your figures include higher lease/"mortgage" payments? Higher overflight and landing charges?

What do you do with an A380 between longhauls? Send it on a MNL turn? How about the additional costs of buying and running sims, paying to keep more manuals, maybe another fleet office, crew and engineer training etc?

[Yonosoy Marinero]

The aircraft is meant to increase density on a given route. Fly more pax there with less metal. The point would be to send it to LHR and replace a couple of 777 rotation, or simply increase the seat offering on that route without the need for more frequency or slots. It is a given that it wouldn't be bought without a careful study of the loads, CX isn't and cannot be a 'build it and they will come' airline like EK.

Yes, it costs more to purchase/finance and operate. That's because it is bigger and thus able to generate more revenue... Business 101. The question is whether that extra revenue can be tapped in CX's case.

Note, however, that the costs of crewing the aircraft is fairly similar to that of a jumbo or a 777, the only difference being the few extra girls in the back. Except you now have 500 pax to share the price of one set of crew instead of 300.

Given they can find 3 or 4 daily long haul trips to send them on, there might not be a necessity to have them sit on the ground or MNL turnarounds, given careful planning. Then again a few regional trips would be needed for crew training, just like with the 744 in its heydays.
Note that our competitors in the area, who have all bought it (in obvious delusion, some will say), seem to do rather well on regional routes. No doubt the 9th floor dwellers will have noticed some big Singapore, Korean, Malaysia and Thai tailfins wading around under their windows.

Simulator costs depends on the size of the fleet. After a certain number of crews is needed, then the cost is just the same as buying a sim for additional 777s, slightly less even since the point is to use less crew for a similar amount of ASK. If the fleet is too small, then it might be better to outsource training. I'm sure QF or BA would be happy to oblige.
The maintenance might be the only major extra cost involved, in terms of training, tooling and parts, but then I presume HAECO and TAECO will be wanting to get on nicknames bases with the bird anyway since they are becoming quite popular in the area.

Then there is the PR factor. The A380, thanks to Airbus' mediatic tapage, has become quite famous amongst the otherwise unknowledgeable flying masses. Now, CX is not one for one-upmanship, but I believe our customer base is very much one that wants the best, biggest, newest and shiniest. A quick look around HK says a lot that way.

My limited(/quasi-inexistant) knowledge and experience tells me there is room for the A380 (or 748i for that matter) in CX, but it all comes down to vision and risk appetite, none of which I believe CX management and owner possess a lot of.

[The FUB]

The post above strengthens the case for the -8i. Sim already in place, crew already qualified, port surveys already carried out, eng trained just a few hours required to update the ca with new IFE etc. The figures from the -8F indicate the running costs better than 773 provided that the ac is 85% full.

However, there must be peer pressure on JS as the cx flagship is a freighter, and his mindset against 4 eng 4 long haul. CX need a vla and will lose out as the competition fly their flagships into HKG, another missed opportunity because our execs are so narrow minded that they can only see 50 of their own big picture.

For me the business case for the -8i outstrips the 380, but I would be happy to see either in cx colours, but I won't hold my breath.

[flyingkiwi]

although I am an airbus fan, I have to agree the -8i is prob the way to go. What I would look at doing is. order 10 or so -8i's. These would be available immediately unlike the large delay for the -380, plan to keep them for approx. 6 years as pax a/c which is really the end of the useful life of it unlike the 380 which is in its first iteration and im sure it will have many more stretches and enhancements once the 350 is online. After said 6 years convert them to freighters and replace them with the 777x which is what we know the company really wants.

[crwkunt roll]

although I am an airbus fan
A hair dryer? :p

[flyingkiwi]

nah that's the 340-300, I preffered the -600

[Yonosoy Marinero]

CX need a vla and will lose out as the competition fly their flagships into HKG, another missed opportunity because our execs are so narrow minded that they can only see 50 of their own big picture.

Agreed.

The post above strengthens the case for the -8i. Sim already in place, crew already qualified, port surveys already carried out, eng trained just a few hours required to update the ca with new IFE etc.

Probably, given CX's implication in the -8 already. The other + for the -8 is the extra cargo volume available downstairs compared to the A380. Though there is slightly less opportunity for revenue upstairs. The -8 is also a lighter aircraft.
Then again, depending on the fleet size, the economy of scale could switch things either way.

As someone said above, I couldn't give a damn if I was told to fly an twotter on floats, as long as the COS stands. But we do all have an interest in the future of that airline, and the lack of foresight and tunnel vision syndrome for spreadsheets and cost cutting measures may only lead, in my view, to missed business and growth opportunities.

They is a delicate balance between putting the cow on a diet and trying to extend the grazing field.

[Pucka]

Yonosoy..vert astute posts...but please don't denigrate one of the best aircraft on the planet..and its floats!! DHC 6!! I'd fly one of those in a heart beat over the bigger rubbish!!!

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Are you kidding?

I used to fly aircrafts similar to the twotter and had the time of my life as well. If it wasn't for the wife's passion for new shoes and the kids to feed...

[Koan]

Pucka, I hate being the spelling police but let's get the important ones right.


di·a·bol·i·cal
/ˌdīəˈbälikəl/
Adjective
Belonging to or so evil as to recall the Devil.
Synonyms
diabolic - devilish - fiendish - satanic - hellish

[flyingkiwi]

Koan and other spelling gits. get a life! we fly aeroplanes and don't particularly care how to spell, go waste your time on the forum below and let us talk about our interest, and you go talk about yours.

Spelling Forum - Spelling Questions & Answers, Discussions (http://able2know.org/forum/spelling/)

[711]

It should be interests not interest, shouldn't it?

[711]

Because if demand shrinks you can revert to one 777, but you cannot cut an A380 in two?

Maybe you need to operate a certain number of a/c in order to make it a reasonable option, and LHR is just not enough?

2 times 777 maybe is not much more expensive than one A380 in the end, but offer more yield ( pax and freight increase)


....

[Threethirty]

So after reading all the threads and sifting through the crap it's come down to CX won't be buying the 380 due to..... Geography! Bit pathetic really, Airbus obviously don't know what they're doing.

[cxorcist]

If CX wants a status symbol, they should buy the A380.

If CX wants to make money regardless of the economic cycle, they should stay away from the A380, and buy more big twins.

If CX wants a compromise between the two, they should buy the 747-8I.

[geh065]

Heathrow slots are like gold-dust. Are you suggesting we buy some A380s and simply give up some of our LHR slots?! Never going to happen.

That said I would be very surprised if we don't buy A380s eventually.

[SMOC]

CX251's (777) traffic load the other night was a little over 47,000kg of which 18,700kg was freight it was full with 275pax. (12,000kg traffic load available, this plus the fuel to carry it results in MTOW).

CX255 (744) just over 48,000kg traffic load of which 12,200kg's of freight, also full 358pax. (4,000kg under MZFW)

I asked the guys to create a flight plan for a -8F carrying 65,000kg. (35,000kg below -8I MZFW) I picked 65,000kg as both CX251 & 255 flight plans were based on a initial traffic load of close to 43,000kg the extra 22,000kg is to simulate seats and galleys in the -8F as the pax and freighter 744s differ by around >20,000kg, 25,000 for a -8I is probably more realistic now I've had a closer look.

In regards to fuel the interesting figures were, all based on around 43T of traffic.

744 CORR LDG 543
777 CORR LDG 386
748 CORR LDG 390

It would have been interesting to add that extra 12,000kg to the 777 & 748 flight plans and see what the new CORR RAMP/LNDG figures were.

So the question is can an A380 carry two 777s? or 550pax / 94T of traffic load of which 37,400kg is freight with a spare 24T traffic available? I can't see much hold space being available for 37.4T of freight, perhaps the space wasn't even available for the extra 12T on the 777?

I'm guessing the A380 would hit MLW issues like the A330/340 does, its max freight load would be around 20T operating to LHR, but as said is the space available?

[Shutterbug]

And somehow KE, TG, MH, LH, BA, AF... have all managed to slot these into their rosters in some productive fashion. Amazing. Not only that, but LH and KE have doubled down and ordered from both buffet items. I suppose CX will be eating their lunches soon too?

There's bean counting... and bean counting. I think dominating the Hong Kong aviation market for so long has made CX's management soft.

We'll have more hard data soon enough though. BA's whales are beaching here in November, apparently in the midst of the next downturn in the ongoing financial crisis saga event thing. No better way to test all these splendid theories on capacity etcetera than in a lukewarm economy.

[cxorcist]

Let's put it this way for the LHR market (1500 seats and 100T cargo)...

3 x A380 + 1 x 747F

Or

5 x 777-300ER

... Maybe an oversimplification, but which is cheaper to operate and provides more flexibility in the case of a downturn.

[The FUB]

Perhaps our management have not been shown the big picture as predicted by Air China's bean counters. As with Jack and the Beanstalk, you gotta know your beans and you enemy / competition. No decision on VLA, when told it would be forthcoming by mid 2013, means look for the deception plan.

[VR-HFX]

After enough years in CX to qualify for a wheelchair...my vote is for frequency over heavy-lift.

The 380 doesn't lift cargo over 10 hours. The 777 does and provides the opportunity for frequency.

Given the CX spider network...stay with the 777ER as the long haul camel. The 330/350 as the feeder. Leave the freight to the 748 and add some PX to the fleet for destinations that are slot limited like LHR.

Ideal fleet profile in 2020:

A330/340/350 - 50
777ER/300/200 - 50
747PX 800 -10
747FX400/800-20

FWIW

[donpizmeov]

Does carrying MZFW for 14.5hrs count as over 10hrs?

The Don

[cxorcist]

Hi Don,

I think we covered this before, but what is the payload at MZFW for an EK A380? How much of that payload was cargo? I realize they are not all the same, so maybe the newer ones please.

Also, what was the burn for that 14.5 hour flight at MZFW?

Cheers!

[BusyB]

VCLXI,

Were they full of pax and volume limited on freight?

I can assure you that most of the time staff are waiting up to 3 days to get to LHR and back. 5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 748's. We need a VLA on LHR, doesn't matter which one although a 747-8i would require a minimum of training costs.:ok:

[buggaluggs]

MFF between the 350 and 380, who knows, I'm sure Airbus will push for it.

MFF between the 744 and 747-8F is happening already.

The real question right now is if they will try MFF between the 777 and the -8, the chief pilot (s) have been doing it for a while, but doing it with a larger selection/all the Boeing crew is another story.

[The FUB]

Boeing are sponsoring a MFF 747-777 with the FAA, if this is approved then it opens the door for CAD to approve. However, it's one thing for a chief pilot to do, what about your average pilot who will be struggling for currency on the other type.

Costs will be the determining factor, and as pilots we don't like change maybe we should embrace this and work it to our advantage. Pay/COS etc.

[1200firm]

The 744/748 is the same type rating. Only a differences course required. If you're current on one you're current on the other. No MFF malarky.

The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i :ok:

[donpizmeov]

CX,
It would burn about 60t more than a 777 to LHR and 50t more on the return. 17t freight on the long range ones with 489 pax. 19t on the med range ones with 517 pax. Think I showed previously how the extra pax ticket cost covers more than the fuel cost. Unless of course fuel gets to over $4000 per 1000kg.
But if you haven't got the pax base to fill em you wouldn't want to be flying them. ULR flying from the sand pit is being moved from the 777 to the 380 as it makes more money. Our 777s have 54 more seats than yours. They become MTOW limited at 12hrs so are only carrying 45t of revenue to/from the oz east coast and less to LAX.

The Don.

[cxorcist]

Don,

Thx. I do believe CX could fill the A380 at least once per day to LHR, LAX, and JFK (maybe SFO as well). Of course, any airline can fill anything if willing to collapse yields. I think the question for CX is return on investment. I believe CX sees a higher ROI from another A350 or 777 than it does from an A380. Keep in mind that the real price of those two twins is around $150M and the A380 is about $190M. I'm sure CX could get the -8I über cheap since very few carriers seem to want them. So maybe those numbers start to look extremely attractive.

I agree with Busy B that CX needs something bigger, even if only in small numbers (10-12). The -8 makes more sense from a cargo volume perspective and because there would be essentially no training costs for crews and maintenance on the Intercontinental. However, maybe Doric offers CX attractive lease terms such that the A380 makes sense.

[DA50driver]

Chinese airlines do not need to make a profit. They make money off people like me who operate private airplanes into China. The latest stops we have made in Beijing are up to 50k USD per flight. Part of this charge is actually called an "Airline Compensation Charge", where I have to pay to compensate the Chinese carriers for not carrying these passengers in and out of China.

I flew China Eastern (380) from LAX to Beijing myself a month back. Business class was not even half full. The rest of the plane was about half full.

If you are using Malaysian Airlines as an example of airlines that use the 380 profitably, you may wish to rethink that. Malaysian is basically bankrupt, I would expect to see big changes there shortly. They bought the 380 for the same reason they built a gazillion dollar Formula 1 track. P..nis envy.

That being said, as a passenger I enjoy riding on the 380. It is nice and quiet.

[BusyB]

Apologies,

When I said
"5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 748's."

I meant

5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 744's.;)

[LGB]

Even with 5 flights a day now, they are still all full. Get a 6th LHR flight? Good luck.

Not that the company is required to keep spare seats for ID90, but as long as all flights are as full ... there must be passengers aplenty for larger aircraft.

[Qantas94Heavy]

The 744/748 is the same type rating. Only a differences course required. If you're current on one you're current on the other. No MFF malarky.

The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i :ok:

As far as I'm aware, the rules have not changed regarding having an exit near each end of the aircraft - I've compared the 1982 rules (to which the 747-400 and 747-8 were certified) with today's FAR 25 regulations and have seen the same clause in both regarding the exit location provisions (having said that though, I'm not an aviation law/certification specialist, so don't rely on what I say).

Current FAR 25 (link here (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=5fd924af08e221aa6766fee4501b2677&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.11&idno=14#14:1.0.1.3.11.4.178.58))
§ 25.807 Emergency exits.

<snip>

(f) Location.
(1) Each required passenger emergency exit must be accessible to the passengers and located where it will afford the most effective means of passenger evacuation.

(2) If only one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tailcone or ventral emergency exit, the floor-level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation.

(3) If more than one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a combination cargo and passenger configuration, at least one floor-level exit must be located in each side near each end of the cabin.


1982 FAR 25 (amendment 25-55 through 59: link here (http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgFAR.nsf/0/4466F2A1BD3B7A168525667200515A5C?OpenDocument))

Sec. 25.807
Passenger emergency exits.

<snip>

(c) Passenger emergency exits. The prescribed exits need not be diametrically opposite each other nor identical in size and location on both sides. They must be distributed as uniformly as practicable taking into account passenger distribution. If only one floor level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tail cone or ventral emergency exit, the floor level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment, unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation. Where more than one floor level exit per side is prescribed, at least one floor level exit per side must be located near each end of the cabin, except that this provision does not apply to combination cargo/passenger configurations. Exits must be provided as follows:

<snip>

Getting back on topic - I don't believe that CX really needs the A380, as it's just too much plane to fill reasonably. The problem is that they really can't spread around their flights to do only one A380 per day, as people will expect consistent quality of service and the subsequent high downtime at the other end of the flight will impact their ability to move around aircraft quickly. Even with projected growth, CX and the A380 won't be able to be flexible enough to move with varying market demands to stay afloat for the next few years.

[SMOC]

Airbus questions Boeing's certification plan for new widebody 747-8I to use grandfathered data from previous Jumbos (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-questions-boeings-certification-plan-for-new-widebody-747-8i-to-use-grandfathered-data-from-previous-jumbos-211624/)

Airbus questions Boeing's certification plan for new widebody 747-8I to use grandfathered data from previous Jumbos

The 747-400 was itself approved as an amendment to the certification of the original 747-100 that was launched in 1966.

According to Leahy, the door configuration in the forward part of the 747 main deck - where passengers in the nose-section have no forward exit option - would also be non-compliant. "You have to have two directions to get out," he says.

All water under the bridge now.

[freightdog188]

BAM!

We missed the boat on the 380 and the 747-8i.
Ok, fine, they don't want a 4 engine fuel guzzler.
But they're about to miss the boat on the large twin, too ....

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Actually, you can bet your profit share that CX will be buying the 777-9.

They're already pretty involved in the program and have started to pester Boeing by sending a bunch of guys to Seattle to whine about how they want it done.
They just don't like to be the launch customer of anything. It's bitten their hand before...

[main_dog]

It would appear that, on the passenger side at least, we will be a twin-only airline. :suspect:

[akerosid]

Realistically, as soon as the 779 was mooted, the 748 was dead in the water. The 779 is roughly the same length, has a slightly wider wingspan and is only slightly narrower (and can accommodate 10 abreast in Y class - something I hope CX doesn't avail of, but suspect it will!); it really does much the same job as the 748, with two engines.

It's pretty much a no-brainer.

The only question is "when"; I'd expect an order before the end of the year. The A388 won't happen; the A389 may happen, but Airbus is in no hurry to launch it.

[cxorcist]

LH was the last holdout to the old adage, "Four engines for long haul." So the fact that they have finally caved on big twin economics probably seals the deal across the industry. Note however that the 777-9 will not be available for 7 years in 2020. That's a long time, and many things can happen in that period.

The 747-8 really serves as little more than a bridge to the 777-9 (and a great freighter). I still think there is the possibility of CX operating a limited number of Intercontinentals, maybe on lease, especially if the global economy starts to improve. The airplane has better economics than the 777-300ER, but does not compete well against the new generation of A350 and 777X.

As for the A380, I think a -9 version would ensure that the program never breaks even. While the economics may improve, the capacity risk to airlines just gets worse. EK would undoubtedly be a fan, but I'm not sure there would be any other takers out there.

[Frogman1484]

Cxorcist. Dream on, not going to happen. At Cx we will not see a four engine plane flying passengers. If you love the 747-8 you are going to love the freighter patterns.

[BusyB]

4 engines also gives you the performance out of J'burg instead of leaving freight or pax behind.:confused:

[geh065]

Can't buy an inefficient fleet just to better serve a single destination.

[BusyB]

Doesn't have to be a single destination. There a number of Hot/High destinations in Africa and S. America that CX could expand to. With slot limitations as well there is more to consider:ok:

[asianeagle]

4 engines also gives you the performance out of J'burg instead of leaving freight or pax behind

sadly, not necessarily the case.

can be solved though by adjusting departure time to NOT be at the worst possible time of day!

[AQIS Boigu]

agreed...we are the only long haul leaving at lunch time whilst all the Euro/US bound carriers leave in the evening...

[LGB]

Boeing 777X to spark mini-jumbo war | Aspire Aviation (http://www.aspireaviation.com/2013/03/28/boeing-777x-to-spark-mini-jumbo-war/?lang=en)

This article is from March, but still an interesting read.

With the usual delays, it might be another 10 years until CX can get the first 777X, so why not lease a dozen -8Is until then?

[AsiaMiles]

Look at the current timings

Depart HKG 2345 arrive JNB 0625 / depart JNB 1230 arrive HKG 0715.

If you bring the JNB departure time forward 2 hours then the 40% of passengers who connect from Cape Town and Botswana can't make it the same day and may require an overnight - you will loose business. Also the arrival time HKG would then be 0425 - passengers would love that. You would have to change all the arrival/departure slots not just the JNB departure slot and slots are like hen's teeth now.

If you change the departure until early evening (say 4 hours later) then the HKG arrival is the middle of the day HKG and a lot of the connecting flights have already departed and the passenger has to wait until the evening for the next round of connections.

[asianeagle]

AsiaMiles

I agree to a point but, the vast majority of the flight is loaded with people connecting to China. There are many connections through the day.
Also, we are doing a lot of flights these days arriving at 0430 so can't be all that bad.

Anyway...all above my pay grade. If they want me to depart at 1230 with its associated limitations, then so be it! I don't get the bonus anyway:sad:

[ItsMeFromEarth]

A380 versus B748(I), is 12 t/H versus 10 t/H.

[cxorcist]

Froggy,

I think a lease for a small number of -8Is is very reasonable, not by any means likely but certainly possible since the -400s will be gone soon. So you're dreaming comment is a bit off. I personally would love to see all smaller airplanes with more frequencies = more pilot demand and greater leverage for the AOA. Now that's dreaming.

[XFR8]

I think all of you may be missing the point.

None of the present incumbents will be around for much longer and so they are delaying any decisions on Aircraft purchase and Housing/Basing deals as long as possible.

All of these decisions will shortly be made from an office north of the border.

Got an interview in the desert? Go and have a look.
Got a number in the US? Use it.

I am of course speculating with no hard evidence.

[Frogman1484]

I agree with XRF8. When Beijing is making the decisions you will see the A380 arrive. You never here anyone getting bribed with a box of California wine ...french yes!

Decisions will not be made on merit but who gives the biggest envelope!

[ByAirMail]

JNB highest yield is crayfish and abalone, coming up from ape Town, destined for the Japanese market. The midday departure is the only one connecting to have the abalone in the market in the critical time window for farm to the table.

[Freehills]

ape Town? THAT'S RACIST!

[SMOC]

CX better order something, rumours of huge Emirates and Etihad orders at the upcoming Dubai airshow, A380s or B748s maybe the only thing available in the lot.

[donpizmeov]

Rumour has it 150ish 77Xs (mostly replacements) and 90 more 380s (for a total of 180) for EK. Seems the A350 order EK has may be changed to 380s. No idea of the quality of the rumour though.
The Don

[no sponsor]

Frogman,

I always wondered why CX had so many 330/340s. It's not far from Toulouse to the Riviera and those plush villas which the Chinese political elite seem to quite like. :)

[bekolblockage]

For info BA's A380 service to HKG commences today (wed). BA25 ETA 1300L.

[monster330]

Who fcuk!ng cares

Ooooohhh cx this, oooooooohh cx that

F@ck guys. More importat sh!t than effin C effin X

Your job n conditions are going down the toilet, and you crap on about an airplane.


No wonder this job and its terms suck.

[betpump5]

We all should care. Our airline is going down the toilet because our management (what a joke) are living in the shadows, while our competitors are flying aircraft passengers want to fly in.

Reckon we will be able to negotiate another 3-year pay deal in 2017?

Wind your neck in.

[bigbeerbelly]

Who fcuk!ng cares

Ooooohhh cx this, oooooooohh cx that

F@ck guys. More importat sh!t than effin C effin X

Your job n conditions are going down the toilet, and you crap on about an airplane.


No wonder this job and its terms suck.

Breathe in... breathe out, breathe in...breathe out. Now drink some beer and relax. :)

[tdracer]

Airbus May Be Making the World's Fattest, Most Expensive Turkey (http://mediatracking.com/npcapp/bounce.aspx/npcemail/34408/4/d2lsbGlhbS52LmVhbWVzQGJvZWluZy5jb20~/1033328027)

No U.S. carrier has stepped up to buy the A380 and none likely will. “The A380 is, by definition, an uneconomic airplane unless you’re a state-owned enterprise with subsidies,” said Delta ceo Richard Anderson in a recent speech. He’s making a reference to Emirates and Singapore Airlines, who own about 45% of all planned deliveries. Emirates has 35 A380s operating out of a total order of 90. According to aviation expert Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis at Teal Group, there have been 167 net A380 orders over the last decade. Airbus planned to build 30 A380s annually but the current rate is less than 17 per year. “The people who are in the order book are the order book,” Aboulafia says, meaning the potential to add new orders is limited.

Your Mileage May Vary :E

[cxorcist]

I'd like to play devils advocate here:

It would be a far better business model if CX flew a 787-8 or incrementally larger aircraft direct from HKG to every market which could support several flights per week. Tap the high yield pax and cargo which pay a premium for the direct flights and leave EK (and like carriers) to connect low fare pax through the Gulf (or elsewhere) on their big A380s.

This is essentially what CX does right now with the A330 to all the major cities in Australia. Right? Now maybe the flights to Sydney and Melbourne need larger aircraft. I don't know, but clearly CX has chosen to simply increase frequency rather than fly larger equipment there.

I think this is a prototypical case of "Bigger isn't always better."

[bigjames]

cx only serves 2 Canadian cities... is there demand for a few times a week to (say) Calgary and/or Montréal with a 787 or 350 type of aircraft?

[swh]

This is essentially what CX does right now with the A330 to all the major cities in Australia. Right? Now maybe the flights to Sydney and Melbourne need larger aircraft. I don't know, but clearly CX has chosen to simply increase frequency rather than fly larger equipment there.

Have a look at an airfrare from Oz to where ever, CX used to be high yield, now you can get a return airfrare from Oz to Europe for around AUD$1600.

Question : how is it they are offering airfrares lower than 10 years ago in this "high oil price" environment ????

[cxorcist]

Swh,

You completely missed my point. I don't think CX should be trying to capture market share on the Kangaroo route. That is a mostly low yield market with everybody and their brother competing for that traffic.

The traffic CX wants is O&D HKG. That means traffic which originates from HKG or has HKG as its destination. This is the high yield market. Go look at those fares, they are expensive because only two carriers do it, CX and QF. Near as I can tell, CX is kicking the crap out of QF to HKG.

The Kangaroo route should only be utilized to fill seats during off peak periods when demand is low. Of course connecting traffic is important, but that is more the case for regional connections than for long haul to long haul markets.

You can be assured that CX is not dumb when it comes to revenue management. IMO, it is one of the only things CX does exceptionally well. It is also the primary driver behind CX not committing to a new VLA aircraft. If they ever show up, I believe they will be leased, not purchased. The last thing CX wants to do is fight fare wars with other A380 operators in desperate attempts to fill seats.

[BuzzBox]

Big bird fails to take off: Airbus A380 sales slump (http://www.smh.com.au/travel/travel-news/big-bird-fails-to-take-off-airbus-a380-sales-slump-20131024-2w3k0.html)

[FlexibleResponse]

The B747-8 seems to have reduced orders and slashed production rates as well...

Perhaps things will pick up again for VL aircraft when the World Economy looks brighter. That has been the pattern in the past.

[boxjockey]

With the 777x on the near horizon, the 747-8 will likely die out a quiet death. You cannot argue a 15% CASM gain from the 777-3ER to the new 777X. Maybe a few more freighters, but the big twins are going to be our future. Get used to it!

box

[cxorcist]

Smaller twins could make the route map look a lot more interesting, although I doubt CX has the stones for that kind of expansion. Why fly to DFW or BOS when a fourth LAX or JFK can be added? That's the mentality we are up against. Why fly to Gatwick or Manchester when a fifth LHR can be negotiated away from ANZ? Why not fly to Munich? Maybe because all our long range airplanes are just too big?!?

Maybe the A359 opens up some new markets, maybe not. It's only 30 seats fewer than the A350-1000, which is essentially the same size as the 777-300ER minus a wee bit of girth on the fuselage.

HKG is getting a third runway. So why not buy the whole line of 787s? The smaller two can be used for long haul route map expansion while the -10 serves as the replacement aircraft for the A330 on regional and medium range routes.

I'm sure many of you Boeing haters will post all the articles about maintenance issues on the 787, but does anyone truly believe that it will not be a another reliable Boeing aircraft once all the kinks are worked out?

In some sense, I suppose the A358 could accomplish the same, but from what I've been reading it may not even be produced because it is so much heavier than the same sized 787-9. If CX avoids the 787 series altogether, what replaces the A333, the A359 Regional? Again, that is a much heavier, and less efficient, aircraft than the 787-10.

Taking cover...

[fdcg27]

Any airline can fill any aircraft on any route.
It's just a matter of what price they can get for each seat.
One airline makes up the bulk of the A380 order book.
This airline has found that it can hub enough traffic through a single well placed airport to make this aircraft work well.
Most other airlines have ordered a relative handful of A380s.
The total order book for the 747-8i is embarassingly small.
The future looks to be in big twins. For slot constricted airports, higher fares will be used to deal with demand. There are always nearby alternatives.
If you really must arrive at LHR, you'll pay for the priviledge.

[tdracer]

With the 777x on the near horizon, the 747-8 will likely die out a quiet death. You cannot argue a 15% CASM gain from the 777-3ER to the new 777X. Maybe a few more freighters, but the big twins are going to be our future. Get used to it!
I don't think Boeing would be all that upset if they don't sell many 747-8 Intercontinentals, so long as they can sell the 747-8F. Scuttlebutt is that they don't really make much money on the passenger version compared to the freighter anyway (its harder to build). Meanwhile, the 777F peaks out at about 100 tons payload - if you want more than that the 747 is the only game in town (~140 tons for the -8F). Yes the freight market is soft right now, but nearly everyone expects it to come back eventually. Most of the 747-400s built after 2000 were freighters, so it wouldn't be a big surprise if the freighter makes up the majority of the 747-8 production.

Meanwhile, everything is in place to build Intercontinentals if the market comes back, or even if it just a customer like Cathay that comes in an wants 10 or 12 airplanes. :ok:

[cxorcist]

fdcg27,

That is a very good post. You are exactly correct on all counts.

IMO, those points all make the case for long range twins - 787-8 size and up - serving point to point or hub to point markets.

An interesting parallel is with the "RJ revolution" in the US which is unraveling as a successful point to point aircraft. The reason it unravelled is because the seat economics are horrible on RJs. The newest generation of medium size twins (787 and A350) have excellent seat economics.

[cxorcist]

tdracer,

I think your post is accurate. The 747-8 has always been a relatively "risk-off" program because all those -400 freighters need to be replaced sometime. Unless a carrier is willing to downsize to the 777F or even further to the A330F, the 747-8F is the only game in town in the cargo market.

[SMOC]

China Southern joins Sydney's A380 club | Plane Talking (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2013/10/28/china-southern-joins-sydneys-a380-club/)

China Southern joins Sydney’s A380 club, promises cold beer

China Southern in crisis over serving warm beer to Australian passengers. Vows to lower the temperature as it brings its A380s to Sydney and 787s to Auckland.

China Southern A380 gets hosed at Sydney Airport: Supplied photo


It would have seemed superfluous to those caught in this morning’s unforecast deluges across parts of Sydney, but China Southern took its own watery initiation when it joined the airport’s A380 club when it arrived amid what was a very wet peak hour for some drivers.

The daily A380 it now flies to Sydney from Guangzhou coincided with its launching of Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner flights to Auckland. Needless to say, ‘they’ are watching intently, not just in Qantas and Air New Zealand, but in Cathay Pacific, since the rise and rise of nearby Guangzhou as a well connected China hub with a very good modern airport is not just an issue affecting its Australian services, but its marketing of Hong Kong as a gateway to the PRC.

It’s also a case possibly getting circled by A380s. With Qantas soon to go daily with A380s from Sydney to Hong Kong and China Southern now daily to it rival neighbour, the frequency versus size card may start to look like less of a game winner given the very high probability of strong growth in the China to Australia market, never mind the much smaller one in the the other direction (in time).

Can Cathay Pacific afford to leave passengers behind for others if it only [has] slots for four A333s a day on the Sydney route until it replaces them with 777-300ERs (which it needs for other longer routes) or A350-900s and -1000s later in the decade, when the game might just be over?

Not everything has gone China Southern’s way however. Today it also to its credit admitted to ‘cultural’ problems with serving warm beer to Australians flying its new Canton Route to London. Now that’s a reputational crisis if ever there was one, but China’s biggest airline is resolved that it will no longer be warm beer on board, although maybe it will have to make an exception for any Pommie passengers.

[Trafalgar]

Interesting sight last night. At the North West end of the terminal, there was a Lufthansa -8I, a BA 380 and an Emirates 380 side by side.....with a CX 777 ER next to them. Small, sad and lonely is how it appeared.....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/sowee.gif Pretty apparent which airlines are endeavouring to provide the premium products in the market place. It's not CX....http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wbored.gif

[ETOPS240]

Im sure it looked a little pathetic among its larger peers, Trafalgar. The thing is, however, that the AC type is not what makes it premium. Ok, there's that fuzzy feeling walking in and turning left in a Jumbo, and the A380 is a tad quieter. Note that there is absolutely nothing exclusive about the A380 - there are so many seats in first and business, it doesn't have an exclusive feel about it, whatsoever.

The bottom line is that its the carrier that provides premium product, not the aircraft. The number of pax who will opt for the A380 due to a bit less noise and roomier 'feel' will be more than offset by the number of pax who want frequency. QR is another 'twin-jet' fleet who undoubtedly provide some of the industry's best service. A/C have nothing to do with it, provided they are modern.

Whether we think CX service is good or declining; one thing is for certain, it is still better than most. Certainly moreso than our OneWorld A380 operating brethren.

All the A380 will do is help capture market share. It's fair to say CX have done a decent job of getting it's requisite share of the HKG-LHR market. It is also in a far better position to manage yields than an A380 operator. Love or loathe them, the CX management are very astute at revenue and yield management.

Market share does not mean profit. At a time when all the US carriers were going bankrupt chasing market share, Herb Kelleher was in the background, the only one saying that market share is not profit. Look how that turned out.

[twotigers]

If you've pax'd on a A380 you'd know how incredible it is.
There is a massive difference in passenger experience vs B747/777 and A380.

No debate. Its quieter, roomy, and a nicer ride.

[Threethirty]

Actually ETOPS, I'll have to disagree with you. Having flown BA recently I would have to say the level of service was the equal of CX if not better! The quality of food was superior, the cabin staff friendly and attentive and obsessed with "the customer". I'm not saying that CX is bad but you'll be surprised by how much BA has improved.

[ETOPS240]

Certainly it sounds like your experience was more positive than mine on BA. Admittedly, it's been a couple of years since I flew with them. Hopefully an increase in their service standards will cause CX to re-align their definition of premium service. After all, CX are generally much more expensive to book with.

Twotigers, I've used A380s many times. It is quieter, and some operators have a stand-up bar. That's terrific! Otherwise, I personally don't get the hype. I don't find it more roomy, unless I'm looking sideways. After all, it's a two deck aircraft in an airframe that isn't twice as deep. I'm not disagreeing with you though, it's certainly nicer. How much so is obviously subjective, which determines whether it's worth forgoing your 35 options a week on CX. Clearly, the CX consensus - which I happen to agree with - is that passengers (or at least the yield worthy ones) will favour the frequency options.

I think that an A380 order would paint CX into a corner. Great when they're full (of decent yield payload), otherwise a huge gamble, and not worth the risk. It's all well and good pointing out increasing market share, missing the boat etc... but conservative judgement is something that's done CX well since it's inception. Rapid expansions and risk taking is something that has killed off a huge number of airlines. If it weren't for government aid in many countries, that number would be much, much greater.

I'm not in any way a CX apologist, and I'd like them to increase their customer appeal. I think the way to do this is to reinstate proper salt and pepper shakers, and use product and service to lure the punters. I think CX hard product is excellent, but the darling has always been service. Look at where it once was. This is the area where CX need to pour resources. Having the cabin ceiling 1 foot higher in a 380 is always going to be overshadowed by attentive, caring crew.

I have a couple of friends who are very prolific first and business fliers, largely on CX. Top-tier membership and all that guff. Their comments are very closely aligned; the product is great, as are frequencies. The service, whilst still good, is certainly diminishing.

These are the types of passengers CX relies upon. Frequent business travellers in premium cabins. They couldn't care less about the A/C type. They do want to be somewhat pampered for the hundreds of thousands of USD they spend each year though.

This is a relatively cheap fix, and one that would cement high yield bums on seats. It just takes the right attitude to implement.

[cxorcist]

ETOPS,

Your is a very sensible post, and I agree 100%.

[China Flyer]

Actually, cxorsist, I don't agree with you agreeing with etops.

CX have done a decent job of getting it's requisite share of the HKG-LHR market

What a load of absolute bollocks! Twenty (or so) years ago we were flying one flight per day and BA had two. Now we fly a massive five flights per day, and God knows how many more other airlines fly "our" route; and you think that's good!?

"Decent" would have been taking every slot that was available, not handing them to our competitors.

[ETOPS240]

Sorry, what? Are you honestly that stupid? God probably does know how many other airlines fly 'our' route. So do many others.

BA - 2 x Daily
VS - 1 x Daily
CX - 5 x Daily

Let's have a look. Let's even pretend that all the aircraft used are the same, because it seems simplification is a trait which you'll value.

Twenty years ago, BA operated two flights a day. CX operated one. During this era, BA had a 66.6% market share. CX had a 33.3% market share.

Now, BA have a 25% market share. VS have a 12.5% market share. That's (25+12.5) 37.5% of the market which CX don't have. 100-37.5=62.5

Using such simplification, CX have a 62.5% share of the market. By my maths, I would suggest that 62.5 is a bigger number than 33.3, therefore I would make the assumption that CX market share on the HKG-LHR city pair has INCREASED. In fact, it's nearly doubled. Do I think thats good? I do. Now, factor in aircraft size, and we'll learn that BA have a larger market share than 25%, and CX less than 62.5%.

Now, I know you're an all-important pilot and everything, but for a moment, consider how stupid one question can make you sound. Folks far above your pay grade, at a very high commercial and political level negotiate for the rights to operate international flights. Such permissions come with value-reciprocity between the two nations.

If you think that CX could have kept on growing HKG-LHR city pairs without IATA and government bodies allowing other relevant airlines a fair crack at it, you're extremely ignorant of the process involved. Let's face it, BA are the only real competition on the route. CX are not going to be given carte-blanche to launch more and more flights on the route without BA being given reciprocal rights.

In a slot-limited destination such as LHR, as other airlines fail to operate the route profitably, CX or anyone else have the opportunity to try to snag it. For example, 237/239 which was ANZs loss.

Having watched airlines come and go on the route, I'd say CX is reasonably dominant of the market.

[SMOC]

Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (293) is weighing as many as 25 of the aircraft in a transaction that probably would come before the Dubai event, one of the people said. The expo runs Nov. 17-21 and is often a showcase for long-haul jets like the 777.

From the 777X thread.

[JammedStab]

While I look forward to flying on the A-380, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer a relatively loud constant wind noise to drown out all the other non-constant noises such as people talking, babies etc.

[crwkunt roll]

Yes it can.... Duct tape.

[twotigers]

Noise Cancelling Headsets can.. try BOSE.

and I just booked travel to Europe in Nov... on BA A380, in Business.

Since our own flights to the UK are "slim"...

The muppets running this circus have no clue, when their own staff are booking other carriers and paying a premium.

[cxorcist]

I'd bet those J class seats on BA were cheaper than CX. Would you really pay more to be on the A380? I don't think so.

So who is it with "no clue" - BA for operating the no cargo carrying super jumbo and selling cheap seats or CX charging more and carrying 25T cargo in the 777 belly under your feet?

Do the math... It's not that hard to figure out that running an airline is more complicated than choosing your favorite jumbo jet.

[Yellow Pen]

I'd bet those J class seats on BA were cheaper than CX.

BA haven't dropped their J class now the A380 is on the route, they've been chasing yield over volume on this route for well over three years and the A380 only adds 26 more J seats.

Would you really pay more to be on the A380? I don't think so.

No, but it appears passengers expect to pay less if they're not.

So who is it with "no clue" - BA for operating the no cargo carrying super jumbo and selling cheap seats or CX charging more and carrying 25T cargo in the 777 belly under your feet?

BA aren't selling cheap seats, they're selling more seats at the same price and putting all their cargo on the 773 that follows 30 minutes behind the A380.

[cxorcist]

Yellow Pen,

Really? You sure about that?

I just looked online and found for a LHR J class return (same dates) the CX seats cost between $57-66K while the BA seats on the A380 were as low as $43K.

If you have different information, let me know...

Oh, and you can take that 25T cargo in the 777 bellies and multiply that by 5 which is the number of CX flights to LHR each day.

Looks to me like CX is kicking the cr@p out of BA on this route in terms of both pax and cargo.

Maybe it is a different story in first class. Anecdotal evidence that CX whales are not happy with CX F class on 777s.

Should CX build its fleet around F class? I'm guessing that would be unwise since they are not a huge part of the revenue equation percentage-wise.

[Yellow Pen]

Oh I'm quite sure cxorcist, with good info from the horses mouth to back it up. As Asteroid mentions, BA have a sale on at the moment which may be affecting the fares on the website, but as most of their J revenue on the route comes from corporate contracts the website tells barely any of the story.

BA didn't have to put an A380 on the route. They have plenty of other routes they could employ the aircraft on, but the fact that they decided to put a 25% increase in capacity on the HKG wouldn't support the notion that they were having the crap kicked out of them, either on pax or cargo (don't forget BA have the GSS contracted B748F out of HKG in addition to belly cargo on the 773 and 380).

LHR-HKG is about yield, not volume. Five years ago there were a lot more seats between the two on a daily basis and nobody was making much money as everybody fought for market share. There are just three operators left now that the fifth-freedom carriers have been pushed out and capacity constraint has helped the economics of the route. If CX want to bump up volumes on the route then that could be down to any number of things:

Genuinely making money on the route.
Trying to take market share and drive a competitor off.
Chasing volume over yield, Emirates-style.
Having nowhere else to employ spare capacity.

There's a lot more to it than saying "We've got five flights a day so we're winning".

[SMOC]

Looks like CX has ordered more -8Fs on top of the current 13, as line number 1505 has been assigned to CX which is #14.

[Sam Ting Wong]

Dunno Gents..

Nobody of you, including me, really has inside information. This is more complex than many of you think imho. It takes more than browsing the web and counting seats. No offence.

[boocs]

SMOC,

Can you advise, how many -400F's does CX currently still have, and do you know the time frame for their retirement (if there is one). Also, your news of additional orders for the -8, would these be replacements for the -400's, could this mean an increase in the current total freighter numbers, or could they be going to CA for that CX/CA Freight co-op in Shanghai?

Thanks,

b.

[Methersgate]

I'm only a passenger.

"The intelligent mis-use of aeroplanes" used to be CX-speak for using bigger aircraft than other people would have considered for a given route. It worked extremely well, along with "All CX planes are tarts" (they sleep away from home) and "the only frequency is daily, to pay for the spare engine".

I don't doubt that CX can provide a superior premium travel experience and yield-manage the back of the bus - that has been CX's essential management trick for a long time.

I very much hope to see a big CX order for 380s; if no such order is forthcoming many pax, like me, will conclude that CX management are not what they used to be and have bottled it.

[SMOC]

Can you advise, how many -400F's does CX currently still have, and do you know the time frame for their retirement (if there is one). Also, your news of additional orders for the -8, would these be replacements for the -400's, could this mean an increase in the current total freighter numbers, or could they be going to CA for that CX/CA Freight co-op in Shanghai?

5 X 400F
1 parked last month plus another to go at some stage, old rollers, I think they'd like to ditch them ASAP.

6 X 400ERF (keeping still newish).

10 X -8Fs
Plus 3 more arriving this year, they're currently sitting on the tarmac in Seattle part of the CX/CA freight rehash.

Plus unknown number of extra -8Fs, as the Boeing production line slip up shows #14, probably replacements for the -400Fs so maybe an order of 4-5?

I think the CX/CA thing has gone quiet, they're going down the 777F route selling the BCFs back to Boeing.

[swh]

How many of the reject -8Fs are sitting still in Marana ?

Did Qantas take delivery of the last ERF that has been getting sandblasted for years, that was the plan when they dumped Atlas.

[cxorcist]

No -8s in the desert as of 29 October

[tdracer]

Plus 3 more arriving this year, they're currently sitting on the tarmac in Seattle part of the CX/CA freight rehash.


I think the 'no delivery' on those three airplanes has more to do with the fact we haven't finished with cert of the improved fuel burn (PIP) engines (and those have PIP engines installed). GE and Boeing are working very hard to finish up the PIP certification since airplanes are stacking up (the US government shutdown didn't help :sad:).

I suspect Cathay is looking to ditch most (if not all) of their older 747-400s. Not only are they getting up there in age, they have RB211-524 engines and Rolls hasn't exactly been going out of their way to support those engines (btw I recently saw an ex Cathay passenger 747-400 being apparently scrapped in Moses Lake Washington).

The newer Cathay 747-400F have PW4000 engines (which Pratt will be supporting for a long times since they're the same engine as what's going on the new 767 USAF tankers). Those six airplanes were part of the last batch of 747-400s Boeing built prior to the switchover to the 747-8.

[tdracer]

Did Qantas take delivery of the last ERF that has been getting sandblasted for years, that was the plan when they dumped Atlas.


I don't know if it's the same airplane you're referring to, but I believe the last new 747-400F sitting in the desert went to Kalita.

[monster330]

Why do yiu guys get such a hardon for some silly aeroplanes.

You'll fly em at below market levels of pay, and crap on about how cool it is to fly some bit of tin round the sky.

Who fcuk ing cares.

[cxorcist]

Monster,

Serious question. What's worse? Guys writing about this stuff on Pprune? Or you getting on here and actually reading it? Or you further wasting your own time and commenting with some negative diatribe?

Don't confuse an interest in the airplanes or the business side of the industry with being willing to accept "below market levels" of pay, etc.

[nitpicker330]

Well some of us Pilots in here actually like Flying and we do take an interest in what piece of Aluminum/ Carbon Fibre we are sitting in for hours on end. Yes as I get older pay becomes the main driver of my interest BUT I still like the job none the less.

787-10 please CX, and I'll retire a happy old fart.....:ok:

[swh]

No -8s in the desert as of 29 October

5 were stored, N772BA for NCA still appears still not have been delivered.

I don't know if it's the same airplane you're referring to, but I believe the last new 747-400F sitting in the desert went to Kalita

LoadAir Cargo 747-4HQF(ER), LN 1416, still registered as N797BA. The aircraft I think you are referring to I think is LN 1419, registered to Kalita as N782CK.

1416 in the front, 1419 in the back

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6189/6141337411_f612b09af3_z.jpg

[The FUB]

With a requirement for more TCs on the B747 this looks like an increase on training task.
Is this to train future CNs and send them to the Airbus, train the future freighter team or something else? Is the -8i still in the long grass awaiting?

[ETOPS240]

That is a very interesting rumour.

I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if it were true. At least the 8i has payload/range capabilities that are less of a compromise.

VLAs are something of a liability, when the going is anything but good. The drying up of orders would corroborate that statement.

Methersgate;

Your last sentence is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. I'm pretty sure you can't magically pull out results from a an airframe with poor economics, in this environment. CX management have made that call. Some times, it will cost them a bit of revenue. However, they aren't holding on to a massive liability when the economic proverbial hits the fan.

Oil prices are only going to trend one way in the long term. Looking outside of aviation, you'll see OPEC stating that $100 a barrel is a minimum going forward. It will get to $150+, and it will put airlines under again.

Look at the carriers using A380s. There are some very nice carriers among them (from a pax perspective), but removing the carriers from the ME - whose accountancy practices that are read through frosted glass at best; and you'll see the majority of them are in huge financial ****. Huge. SG, TG, MS, QF, AF... Notice that these are premium full service carriers. Did they think that passenger experience trumps aircraft economics? It looks that way.

Perhaps it's best summed up as follows;

An A380 could make you more money when conditions are right. However, they will certainly ensure that you lose more money when conditions aren't.

One airline's perspective on the risk will differ from another's. I'm certain that for the longevity of my career, CX has made the correct decision.

CX LHR yield is now breaking company records, time and time again. Enough said.

[cxorcist]

I'm not saying CX will get them, but...

The V2 (Project Ozark) -8I being certified right now is very compelling for airlines which can't wait for the 777X. The fuel burn is reportedly 2% better than the existing Intercontinentals (which puts it about 1% behind the A380 per seat based on LH configurations), and the tail tank issues are sorted putting the range over 8,000nm.

If an airline needs 400ish seats, long range, decent cargo capability, and real premium passenger appeal; then the -8I is not a bad way to go. It has less capacity risk than the A380, although more than the 77W. Why not lease them for a decade and see if they make sense at least until the 777X shows up?

[geh065]

LoadAir Cargo 747-4HQF(ER), LN 1416, still registered as N797BA. The aircraft I think you are referring to I think is LN 1419, registered to Kalita as N782CK.

1416 in the front, 1419 in the back

Actually line number 1416 has just been delivered to Cargolux as LX-ECV. Quite why they are getting a 744F when they are also getting 748Fs is interesting.

[cxorcist]

"Quite why they are getting a 744F when they are also getting 748Fs is interesting."

... Because they need capacity and very likely got a great price on the older technology -400ERF. I'm sure CX would take an ERF as well if the price was good enough. Both carriers still operate -400s and will continue to so for the foreseeable future. If you don't need the extra capacity of the -8F, the -400ERF is a very cost effective option when you factor in the purchase/lease pricing.

[jacobus]

And chatting to some Cargolux guys last week they are enjoying something of a resurgence right now and making all their money in South America. Which probably explains the CX attempt to follow suit.

[geh065]

It is interesting partly because they do not operate any ERFs and do not operate any planes with that version of engine. They must have got it for a very decent price.

[tdracer]

After Cargolux takes l/n 1416 they'll have 747-400Fs powered by Rolls, Pratt (ex Korean BCF), and GE.

I suspect GE made some them some sort of maintenance arrangements for the CF6s to go with all those GEnx-2Bs they're taking on their new 747-8Fs.

BTW, Cathay has two new 747-8Fs sitting in Everett that are planned for delivery before the end of the year, assuming we can get the PIP engine certified :rolleyes:.

The Performance Improvement Package (aka PIP) engine that we hope to certify in the next few weeks is good for 2% fuel burn (I wasn't sure if I could say that, until I saw it in the Everett newspaper :)) - Ozark is intended to be on top of that (various weight and drag improvements).

Testing is currently on-going to allow activation of the H-Stab fuel tank. My understanding is that the InterContinentals delivered so far have the H-Stab fuel hardware, just deactivated. It'll be a fairly straightforward kit to reactivate it.

[cxorcist]

That's all very interesting, tdracer. Keep it coming please...

Also, curious about Ozark. Are you permitted to say how much additional performance it will bring on top of the GEnx PIP's 2%?

If it is 1% or more, any advantage the A380 has on seat cost is gone. This makes the Intercontinental much more attractive as an airplane with less capacity risk and more cargo capability.

[swh]

Actually line number 1416 has just been delivered to Cargolux as LX-ECV. Quite why they are getting a 744F when they are also getting 748Fs is interesting.

Did not know that, about time. It will be an expensive airframe to operate considering the D check it will need within 24 months.

The Performance Improvement Package (aka PIP) engine that we hope to certify in the next few weeks is good for 2% fuel burn (I wasn't sure if I could say that, until I saw it in the Everett newspaper ) - Ozark is intended to be on top of that (various weight and drag improvements).

The PIP is less than 2%, and the HST is needed along with the PIP to reach design range (hopefully).
747-8 'Project Ozark' (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckPostId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost:aa529617-0c92-4f72-b148-b257c81c8b03)

[tdracer]

Did not know that, about time. It will be an expensive airframe to operate considering the D check it will need within 24 months.
Why would it need a D check? It's effectively a brand new airplane - less than 100 hours. The MPD days D check at an 8 year interval but also has the following note: "intervals are applicable to operations from 440 to 1320 cycles per year and from 1500 to 5500 hours per year. Operators whose airplane utilization differs significantly from these parameters will need to re-evaluate the intervals with their Regulatory Authority".
I think it would be rather trivial for Cathay to get the CAAC to allow their first D check to be delayed based on the airplane spending it's first six years parked in the desert.


The PIP is less than 2%, and the HST is needed along with the PIP to reach design range (hopefully).
747-8 'Project Ozark' (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckPostId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost:aa529617-0c92-4f72-b148-b257c81c8b03)


Note that was written just as the PIP flight test was getting started - we didn't have any data. We 'beat' expectations and got a full 2% (as I noted, I didn't know if that was public knowledge until I saw it in the local newspaper). Between PIP and various weight improvements since EIS, we are basically at guarantees (including max range for the InterContinental when HST is active). I've heard some of the -8I operators may not implement the HST because they don't need the extra range for what they do.

cxorcist, I really haven't been following Ozark that close - PIP has been keeping me plenty busy and Ozark doesn't affect me. I think if everything pans out its effectively another 1-2% fuel burn (drag and weight), although some of what I've heard sounded pretty optimistic so if they fall short it wouldn't exactly be surprising :sad:. One thing we did that may pay long term benefit on the Freighter is that we bumped up the max weights by 10,000 lbs so that they could make the original payload guarantees even though the airplane was (about 10k) overweight. Now that we have the benefits of various weight improvements, PIP (definite) and Ozark (perhaps), that could be turned into additional payload.

[tdracer]

Over the past few months tdracer has posted fantastic data & info on "Rumours & News" regarding the -8
It's well worth a read.


Why am I suddenly worried that I'll be getting an unpleasant visit from the Boeing lawyers :uhoh: :eek:

I've been fairly careful to only post stuff that was 'public knowledge', sure hope I didn't :mad:-up.

[cxorcist]

Swh,

That article is almost 6 months old. I'm certain Boeing has a better hack on the numbers now that the certification is almost complete. :ok:

[SMOC]

tdracer I know you're not involved but I read a while back that Boeing was looking at changing the aft wing to body fairing which is still based on the 1960s design the forward wing to body was obviously recontoured in the 1980s with the 744.

[swh]

Why would it need a D check? It's effectively a brand new airplane - less than 100 hours.

The calender limits for A checks I believe is 2 months, 18 months for C checks, and 72 months for D checks. Checks generally have 4 triggers, hours, cycles, calender time, and ADs. Corrosion/cracks are a function of cycles and calender time, fluids/grease often need replacing on calender time/cycles, tanks need cleaning based upon calender time etc.

Note that was written just as the PIP flight test was getting started - we didn't have any data.

GE had data. The PIP engine has parts that are fairly different to the original, and those changes were not done by guessing.

We 'beat' expectations and got a full 2% (as I noted, I didn't know if that was public knowledge until I saw it in the local newspaper).

The GEnx-2B missed the target TSFC by at least 2-3% at EIS. The fan on the GEnx-2B is simply too small, they are geometrically constrained to make it larger. The 747-8 engine is not as efficient as the 77W (fan size impact).

The PIP target was for an improvement of the TSFC of 1.6% (Boeing conducts test flight of 747-8 with PIP (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/boeing-conducts-test-flight-of-747-8-with-pip-386173/)), still not matching the original spec. Even if they managed to get 2% TSFC improvement, they are still not at the spec level.

Despite trying to make out this is super confidential information, the values are on the web if you know where to look, and how to read the data. One can easily go to EASA - Individual Engine Datasheets (http://easa.europa.eu/environment/edb/individual-engine-datasheets.php) and pull up individual engine test results. The test results show the GEnx-2B67 is around 5% behind the TSFC of the A380 powerplants, and around 10% behind the 787 powerplants.

As a bit of a comparison (30% thrust) of of TSFC (lb/lbt/hr)
524H-T 0.3432 (744)
Trent 700 0.3162 (333)
CF6-80C2B5F 0.2966 (744ERF)
Trent 877 0.2928 (772)
CFM56-5C 0.2904 (343)
Trent 892 0.2859 (733)
GEnx-2B67 0.2751 (748)
GE90-115B 0.2587 (77W)
Trent 972 0.2551 (A380)
GP7270 0.2517 (A380)
GEnx-1B64/P1 0.2440 (787)
Trent 1000-A2 0.2361 (787)

A 2% improvement to the TSFC (0.2967) still leaves the GEnx-2B67 a long way behind the A380 and 787, and also behind the 77W.

I'm certain Boeing has a better hack on the numbers now that the certification is almost complete.

Maybe the reason behind the announcement to reduce production rates further to 18 a year ???

[swh]

The TSFCs you provide are performed at or near sea level. As such, they are not necessarily indicative of how the engines will perform at altitude where the majority of most flights will burn most of their fuel. Bigger fans will perform more favorably at lower altitudes, in similar fashion to a turboprop. However, that performance is not necessarily replicated at altitude. There are too many variables to cover here, but I think it is safe to say that you are over simplifying the issue by some margin in drawing conclusions from those numbers.

Turbofans produce most of their thrust from the fan in cruise (around 60%). One needs to get to higher mach numbers (ala Concorde) for the core to be dominant.

The powerplant tests were performed at sea level. Despite what you are trying to suggest, no marked change in the order of the results presented would be evident. All of the powerplants fly through the same atmosphere in a very narrow speed range.

The cruise TSFC will be higher (by about 0.2), however the thrust required in that phase of flight is significantly lower. Cruise thrust is in the order of 10-30% of takeoff thrust, hence the 30% rated thrust numbers were presented, (not 85% or 100%).

[cxorcist]

Swh,

The TSFCs you provide are performed at or near sea level. As such, they are not necessarily indicative of how the engines will perform at altitude where the majority of most flights will burn most of their fuel. Bigger fans will perform more favorably at lower altitudes, in similar fashion to a turboprop. However, that performance is not necessarily replicated at altitude. There are too many variables to cover here, but I think it is safe to say that you are over simplifying the issue by some margin in drawing conclusions from those numbers.

[tdracer]

swh

Your post is so far out in left field it's hard to know where to start.:ugh:

D-checks for a 747 are not a 72 months, they are at 84 months. And airplanes that have been parked for a significant portion of that time routinely get that interval extended. I'm sure there are SOPs for taking an airplane out of storage (depending on how long it's been parked) which would include such things as changing fluids and some basic inspections and functional tests. But there would be absolutely no reason to do a D check on an airplane that had a few hundred cycles and a few thousand flight hours since new.


GE had data.

1.8% had been based on reviews, audits, and rig level testing of the design changes - which in turn was what Boeing was telling potential customers. FTB testing (on a single engine) prior to the start of Boeing flight testing had suggested we were going to beat that, but measuring in-flight TSFC is close to black magic so no one had much confidence until we started flying four engines and measure actual fuel mileage.


The fan on the GEnx-2B is simply too small, they are geometrically constrained to make it larger.

Bull:mad: Pure and utter Bull:mad:. The 747 'constrain' on fan diameter is at least 122 inches - as was proved by the GE FTB (which flew the GE90-115B on the inboard position). In fact, there was a study back in the late 1990s where Boeing looked at a 747 derivative with GE90s on the inboard positions and CF6 engines outboard (seriously, I was in some of the meetings) :eek:. Your so-called geometrical constraint simply doesn't exist.
The GEnx-2B was pretty much a point design for the 747. We could have simply added a bleed system to the GEnx-1B and installed it on the 747 - it would have fit (and I'm sure GE would have been happy to save a few hundred million in development costs). But it was too big to be efficient. The -1B is designed to be at least a 76k engine (planned EIS for the 787-9, maybe higher for the -10), a million pound 747 doesn't need more than 67k - which is what the -2B was designed for. Those big fans give good static sfc numbers, but they are heavy and create large amounts of drag if you're not using the thrust capability.

Cruise drag and sfc numbers are highly proprietary, in no small part because it is so hard to measure the difference. Measuring NAMS (essentially miles/gallon) is straight forward - set precise altitude and airspeed and measure fuel flow - but breaking out thrust vs.drag is very difficult (there have been some nasty battles between airframers and engine manufactures as a result).

Sea Level Static TSFC numbers can be taken with a grain of salt - as noted cruise SFC numbers are what really matter, and those can be greatly different. Based on what you published, the RB211-524T engine burns a full 15% MORE fuel than CF6-80C2 engine. Trust me, if the Rolls powered 747-400 had really burned 15% more fuel than the GE powered, Rolls and Boeing wouldn't have been able to give them away (instead of the ~200 that were produced, and that Cathay still flies). The CF6 does enjoy a small fuel burn advantage over the RB211, but it's maybe a tenth of what you're quoting.

I'm familiar with the data, and cruise TSFC numbers for the GEnx-2B are pretty much on par with the 787 -1B, and meaningfully better than the GE90-115B.


Maybe the reason behind the announcement to reduce production rates further to 18 a year ???


Been paying attention much? Airbus is expected to make a similar announcement for the A380. May have something to do with the market for big quads right now :ugh:

[cxorcist]

Thank you again Tdracer! Please continue to keep an eye on this thread, your expertise is appreciated.

Within a few minutes of really looking at Swh's TSFC numbers, I knew hey were BS. All I had to do was look at his source to know he was far from accurate.

Swh,

I hope you feel like you got busted. You've been pulling crap out of your arse for years on this site. Maybe you'll do some actual research next time instead of grabbing test stand data used for emissions comparisons and pretending that translates to underwing performance.

[tdracer]

Interesting info Silberfuchs, one minor correction:

This is, of course, prior to PIP2.

The 787 -1B is 'PIP 2', GEnx-2B is just 'PIP' - although the changes are pretty much identical between the -1B 'PIP 2' and -2B 'PIP'. The 787 flight tested the GEnx-1B 'pre-PIP' but I'm pretty sure initial deliveries were 'PIP 1'.

[swh]

D-checks for a 747 are not a 72 months, they are at 84 months

The aircraft in question is a 744ERF, not a -8. Boeing say 6 years in this as well AERO - 747-8 Offers Operational Improvements and Cross-Model Commonality (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2010_q3/2/)

The aircraft was built in 2009 and stored until recently.

1.8% had been based on reviews, audits, and rig level testing of the design changes - which in turn was what Boeing was telling potential customers. FTB testing (on a single engine) prior to the start of Boeing flight testing had suggested we were going to beat that, but measuring in-flight TSFC is close to black magic so no one had much confidence until we started flying four engines and measure actual fuel mileage.

The data I was referring was the flight tests on ZA005 and the certification of the PIP on the -1B engine.

The 747 'constrain' on fan diameter is at least 122 inches - as was proved by the GE FTB (which flew the GE90-115B on the inboard position). In fact, there was a study back in the late 1990s where Boeing looked at a 747 derivative with GE90s on the inboard positions and CF6 engines outboard (seriously, I was in some of the meetings) . Your so-called geometrical constraint simply doesn't exist.

Boeing publishes a graph of engine/ground clearance in the manuals, it clearly shows the GEnx even with this fan size posed additional constraints. I am aware of the GE90 work on the inner pod, however the clearance tends to revolve around outer pod clearance as a function of roll and pitch.

The -1B is designed to be at least a 76k engine (planned EIS for the 787-9, maybe higher for the -10), a million pound 747 doesn't need more than 67k - which is what the -2B was designed for.

Is it not true that all GE powered 787s delivered so far have either GEnx-1B64 or GEnx-1B67 powerplants ? PIP1 from what I understand was only to 70,000 lb, with a plan to get it up to 75,000 lb.

Those big fans give good static sfc numbers, but they are heavy and create large amounts of drag if you're not using the thrust capability.

The fuel saving on longer flights would be over double the additional engine weight (approx 500 kg per engine on the wings).

Measuring NAMS (essentially miles/gallon) is straight forward - set precise altitude and airspeed and measure fuel flow - but breaking out thrust vs.drag is very difficult (there have been some nasty battles between airframers and engine manufactures as a result).

Everything I have said so far on engine efficiency (TSFC) has been engine specific, I have not mentioned NAMS. One cannot state engine efficiency in terms of NAMS, one is then looking at the package and many non engine related issues come into play.

That is why I do not take a GE statement of 1-2% improvement in TSFC to mean a 1-2% drop in trip fuel, as other non engines factors come into play which are outside of GEs control. Other people it would seem do not make that distinction.

Based on what you published, the RB211-524T engine burns a full 15% MORE fuel than CF6-80C2 engine. Trust me, if the Rolls powered 747-400 had really burned 15% more fuel than the GE powered, Rolls and Boeing wouldn't have been able to give them away (instead of the ~200 that were produced, and that Cathay still flies). The CF6 does enjoy a small fuel burn advantage over the RB211, but it's maybe a tenth of what you're quoting.

The CF6 had about 5000 lb less thrust the than the 524, the engine I listed was the ERF engine which is rated for more thrust than the 524. At the same point in history, the 524 allowed for higher takeoff weights, manufacturers put into place improvements and we see many variations in thrust and TSFC. The engines have evolved since, the ERF engine produces more thrust for essentially the same fuel burn.

Airbus is expected to make a similar announcement for the A380.

I heard the next announcement was for the sale of 20 units at the DXB airshow, no engine choice yet.

I hope you feel like you got busted. You've been pulling crap out of your arse for years on this site. Maybe you'll do some actual research next time instead of grabbing test stand data used for emissions comparisons and pretending that translates to underwing performance.

You have resorted to personal attacks bully tactics, and no facts. I have NOT stated or inferred "under wing performance", I have provided my data source, anyone is free to check the numbers presented.

The GenEx engines are actually out performing the GE90 in terms of GFC/kg/nm of payload.

That is to be expected as the 77W on a ULH (e.g. HKG-JFK) will have around 40% of its TOW made up of fuel, where the -8F is around 25% (HKG-ANC). The 77W CORR LNDG will be about double the -8F.

It is not a measure of engine efficiency, it is saying it more payload efficient to have a tech stop than non-stop, which is not news.

The 787 -1B is 'PIP 2', GEnx-2B is just 'PIP' - although the changes are pretty much identical between the -1B 'PIP 2' and -2B 'PIP'. The 787 flight tested the GEnx-1B 'pre-PIP' but I'm pretty sure initial deliveries were 'PIP 1'.

Yes initially PIP1, 70,000lb max thrust. The way Deborah Case was talking the PIP1 was a change to the starter, LPT, and external aero, where PIP 2 was a HPT, and LPC/HPC change.

[tdracer]

Wait a minute swh, I went back and re-read your first post, did you really just use the SLS 30% fn number to determine "cruise" SFC? REALLY?:mad:

Sorry, but that's just too hilarious to be real! Jet engines have what is referred to as an SFC "Bucket". The engines are designed for an optimum SFC sweet spot - the low point in the SFC. Go either way in power and SFC goes UP. Since the designers are not idiots, they design the engine such that the 'bucket' corresponds with cruise power settings.

Now, try to imagine this for a minute, even though an engine at 39k cruise is producing ~10%-20% of what the engine can produce SLS (since air density is so low), it's operating at 80 or 90% of it's rated thrust - in the sweet spot of the bucket.

An engine producing 30% rated thrust at SLS is way up on the back side of the bucket and SFC is pretty poor - take that down to 10% and the engine is barely off idle and SFC is horrible. Taking those numbers as having anything to do with cruise SFC isn't apples and oranges, it's comparing apple fruit and Apple computers :ugh::ugh::ugh:

By your simplistic analysis (and I'm being polite), a CF6-80C2B1 (56k) and CF6-80C2B5 (60k) engines would have different cruise fuel burn, which is funny because, aside from ratings plugs on the FADEC, they are identical engines :rolleyes: It also explains your garbage for the RB211:sad:

If this is really your level of expertise in jet engine propulsion, I don't think I need to bother to respond to you in the future - you've clearly shown how little you really know about how jet powered aircraft work :=

[cxorcist]

Thanks again tdracer! I'm beginning to sound like a broken record. I hope you hang around on this thread.

Your point pins down what I tried to tell swh, but I lack the technical expertise to use the words and facts you do. On some level, what you wrote is intuitive to a thinking pilot like myself. That's how I knew swh was completely wrong to use the data he did. So I am grateful for someone on your side of the pond who actually works in the programs we like to banter about.

One of the biggest problems we have at CX is a bunch of smart guys who are bored with the job of driving airliners. Most of us just accept the job for what it is and have other parts of life define us. But there are some, usually in training or the fleet offices, who like to make stuff up and show colleagues how smart they are. Swh's display here is all too common at CX. I'd bet my firstborn he is a training check captain on the Airbus and perhaps even in the Airbus fleet office, A350XWB lanyard on proud display.

[swh]

tdracer,

No need for you now to resort to personal attacks, just stick with the facts.

Wait a minute swh, I went back and re-read your first post, did you really just use the SLS 30% fn number to determine "cruise" SFC? REALLY?

No, I did not say that, I said I presented the 30% rated thrust numbers. I further said I expect the cruise TSFC to be around 0.2 higher than the numbers presented, i.e. around 0.5.

While I fully acknowledge and agree that the test cell numbers are not the same as what will be seen installed on the airframe in cruise, the relative differences should not see any massive change.That is the point of having the tests and compiling the database. The tests are a standardized method of measuring engines against Annex 16, the actual installed thrust rating and limits are another matter.

One cannot make a statement saying the tests pose no relevance, why do the tests at all if that were the case.

Jet engines have what is referred to as an SFC "Bucket".

I did "plot" the 100%, 85%, 30%, and 7% numbers to get the polars, I had calculated the TSFC for every condition in the respective reports. I am aware of off-design conditions/considerations, hence why I have not try to deal with the installed conditions. Many factors outside of the engine manufacturers control start coming into play, for example the 747-8 has a lower initial cruise capability compared to the 788. A relatively easy way I use to get a better idea of cruise level data is by using tools like GasTurb, it does enable one to look at off-design conditions as well. I know it is not perfect as the maps are out of date compared to the latest R&D, however is it better than a wet finger into the wind.

Now, try to imagine this for a minute, even though an engine at 39k cruise is producing ~10%-20% of what the engine can produce SLS (since air density is so low), it's operating at 80 or 90% of it's rated thrust - in the sweet spot of the bucket.

This is the Mach/Altitude of relationship I would expect for any modern turbofan, taking M0.8/11km back to sea level, what percentage of max takeoff thrust do you come up with ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/thumb/5/5a/Tfan-thrust-map-kk-20050824.png/640px-Tfan-thrust-map-kk-20050824.png

aside from ratings plugs on the FADEC, they are identical engines

That is not true, the CF6-80C2 started off with mechanical control, FADEC was only introduced last 1980s/1990 (all 400 engines were FADEC). Over the years all the manufacturers make improvements. Some of the relevant GE press releases from 2002 and 2010.

GE Engine Services Launches CF6-80C2 Engine Upgrades; Upgrade Enhances Engine Performance And Time On Wing | Press Release (http://www.geaviation.com/press/airshows/singapore/singapore_20020226d.html)
GE's CF6-80C2 Engines Celebrate 25 Years of Flight and Counting | Press Release (http://www.geaviation.com/press/cf6/cf6_20101214.html)

This article deals with a lot of the issues with the engine, and what was changed.

http://www.iasg.co.uk/pdfs/articles/engine_services/cf680c2_engine_history.pdf

It also explains your garbage for the RB211

The tests are performed to Annex 16 requirements by the manufacturers, they are what they are. They are not independently tested in a common test facility.

[cxorcist]

Nice work, Swh. You just drove off the only propulsion engineer that this thread will ever see. Your stubbornness knows no boundaries. Your data is cr@p; and your conclusions are, at this point, deliberately deceptive. If you want to continue living a lala land, knock yourself out. But I'm going to follow tdracer and ignore your posts from now on. I recommend other Ppruners do the same.

[Anotherday]

Cxorcist,

Why on earth weren't you and this forum around in 1989 when Boeing began desperately flogging the 767-400ER and airlines wouldn't touch it with a barge pole either.

[tdracer]

It's Ok cxorcist, I'm not leaving, just not bothering to respond to swh anymore.

It's obvious that he knows far more about my job than I do:
That the 747-400 MPD that I'm looking at that quotes an 8 year interval for 'D' check is wrong.
That the GEnx-2B suffers from a geometrical compromise in fan diameter - something that Boeing mysteriously neglected to tell us propulsion design leads that were working on the 747-8 years before it was launched - even before Boeing down selected between Rolls and GE (or apparently anyone else in Propulsion or at GE), that Boeing sacrificed ~10% fuel burn because we couldn't borrow anyone from the 737 group that could have shown us how to mount the engine tighter to the wing without sacrificing performance so we could get another 6" fan diameter to deal with that non-existent geometrical constraint.

Clearly, Boeing needs to hire swh into their performance group - he can look at SLS emissions data and determine TSFC at 39k/M.85 - it'll save Boeing millions in flight test costs. And he should take my job supporting in-service fleet since he obviously knows more about the CF6-80C2 engine - the one I started working on in 1985 (actually he did get one thing right - there are Hydromechanical and FADEC versions of the engine, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all GE does to turn a 52k engine into a 60k engine is change the rating plug on the FADEC).
It's further obvious I can no longer read SFC numbers since what I'm seeing so totally disagrees with what he's divined from that SLS emissions data.

No, it's clear I have nothing to add to the discussion when swh is involved - he knows far more than I do about my own job.:rolleyes:

The rest of you however will need to continue to deal with my unending vomits of irrelevant insider information :}.

BTW Anotherday, what the heck are you talking about?
Why on earth weren't you and this forum around in 1989 when Boeing began desperately flogging the 767-400ER
The 767-400ER wasn't even launched until 1997 (cert and delivery in 2000). Along with the 757-300, a never ending tribute to the Phil Condit school of running a proud company into the ground with no-value derivatives since actually spending money on proper airplane improvements would have hurt 'shareholder value' :mad:

[Frogman1484]

One of the biggest problems we have at CX is a bunch of smart guys who are bored with the job of driving airliners. Most of us just accept the job for what it is and have other parts of life define us. But there are some, usually in training or the fleet offices, who like to make stuff up and show colleagues how smart they are..

Cxorcist I think you have just described your life in here!

Why are we bothered with all of this information? We are not going to get more 747-8 or A380 or 787-9/10 etc.

We have a boat full of A350 coming ( much to Cxorcist disgust:{) we probably will get the new 777 in 2020 and that is it!

[cxorcist]

Froggy,

You and Swh should meet up in the Airbus fleet office. Maybe you can interweave your A350 lanyards and see what happens.

PS - Good news / Bad news today for the A359. First the good, the XWB gained one seat, from 314 to 315 seats. The bad news... The Dreambus just lost 350nm in range, from 8100nm to 7750nm. Now that's one heavy seat!!!

[Frogman1484]

cxorcist..is this what is important in your life? Frankly I would fly Boeing , Airbus in fact anything that pays my bills. Who gives a continental F... how many seats and range they have. At the end of the day you get jet lag and fly through the night on both types!!!

Get off your computer and go and play with the kids....do something that is worth while and productive...get a life beyond Pprune!


Nobody cares!!!

[cxorcist]

^^^ Says the guy who posted 24 minutes after my post.

The pot calling the kettle black? It's called an iPhone. Little time wasted.

PS - Kids are quite content at the moment. Thanks.

[Max Reheat]

Jeezus, this thread is BORING me fartless. I shall now give up following all of the nonsense and drivel!!!!

[swh]

That the 747-400 MPD that I'm looking at that quotes an 8 year interval for 'D' check is wrong.

I do not have the current 747 MPD, if they have "recently" extended the D checks to 8 years, I do apologize. I certainly was 6 years previously, and it does not change that particular 744ERF was built in 2009 and delivered in 2013. This table from Aero 20 - 747 Scheduled Maintenance Cost Reductions (http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_20/747_story.html) maybe also out of date if the MPD has been updated. Newer generation aircraft can get away without having D checks at all with phase check instead of block check maintenance schedules.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/aero_20/images/747_tab1.gif

That the GEnx-2B suffers from a geometrical compromise in fan diameter - something that Boeing mysteriously neglected to tell us propulsion design leads that were working on the 747-8 years before it was launched - even before Boeing down selected between Rolls and GE (or apparently anyone else in Propulsion or at GE), that Boeing sacrificed ~10% fuel burn because we couldn't borrow anyone from the 737 group that could have shown us how to mount the engine tighter to the wing without sacrificing performance so we could get another 6" fan diameter to deal with that non-existent geometrical constraint.

I tracked down where I had read that the engine was geometrically constrained, it was published in Flight International Contenders power up for 747 fight (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/contenders-power-up-for-747-fight-188598/). The article says that the 787 baseline engine could not be used and a "reduction is required after analysis revealed continuing configuration issues with the outboard engine at the 7E7 fan diameter because of interference drag and potential aeroelastic effects". The article dated October 12, 2004 says the fan size was limited to 2.56-2.64m. The GEnx-2B fan is 104.2" (2.64m), the GE press release saying it was selected was dated April 25, 2005. I was wrong in thinking it was related to ground clearance.

And he should take my job supporting in-service fleet since he obviously knows more about the CF6-80C2 engine - the one I started working on in 1985 (actually he did get one thing right - there are Hydromechanical and FADEC versions of the engine, which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that all GE does to turn a 52k engine into a 60k engine is change the rating plug on the FADEC).

I am not sure what you are trying to get at with this comment. To put it in another context, the GEnx-2B is coming out with its second PIP, which along with PIP1 changes components within the engine without changing the rated thrust or model, it will still be a GEnx-2B. CF6-80C2 engine series over their lives have had various similar product improvements which do not change their various models, however they have changed the actual components that are installed within the engine. These product improvements reduce fuel and maintenance costs, however they do come at a cost, which some operators elect not to undertake.

he can look at SLS emissions data and determine TSFC at 39k/M.85

I did not make such a statement, and if that is your understanding of what wrote I apologize.

[bang ding ow]

Vis a vis the certification of the latest -8i performance improvements and upgrades... in words that us aluminium/aluminum cloud drivers can understand. My understanding was that the latest Boeing/GE -8i performance improvement campaign was to be certified at the end of October...obviously the US Govt. shutdown put paid to that.
tdracer..a brief synopsis would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if your previous posts contained the info but they are heavy reading...no pun intended.:eek:
Bang

[tdracer]

Bang ding ow (nice handle BTW);

The PIP was originally planned to certify mid October but that was based on an unrealistic schedule (something I pointed out to management a year ago) :ugh:

Currently, the engine is scheduled to get Part 33 cert this week, and Boeing should have Part 25 cert by the end of the month.

As I noted in a previous post, there are two new Cathay freighters sitting on the flight line with PIP engines that are supposed to deliver by the end of the year.

[cxorcist]

Outbacker,

Those are all pretty easy to answer, except for the profit question which will vary depending on market conditions (pax & cargo demand, competition, yield, etc).

Fastest, probably the A380 with -8I close behind. 77W is definitely slower.

Fuel burn (trip cost), A380 definitely the most with the 77W definitely least.

Cargo volume, 77W carries most, A380 the least. Useable volume depends upon sector time and pax / baggage load. Generically, the 77W is the best belly cargo hauler while the A380 is notoriously poor. The -8I is better than the A380, but not as good as the 77W.

[tdracer]

Fastest, probably the A380 with -8I close behind. 77W is definitely slower.
Both the A380 and 747-8i quote long range cruise of Mach 0.85 (the -8F is Mach 0.84 - my understanding is the longer upper deck on the passenger gives it better area ruling that helps transonic drag). 777 is a tad slower at 0.84.

[Anotherday]

TD Racer I was referring to the 767X that eventually eventually became the 767-400er that Boeing flogged like a dead horse

[Sam Ting Wong]

So, to summarise this epic discussion, the only minor detail missing now is which aircraft would eventually make any money...:hmm:

[tdracer]

TD Racer I was referring to the 767X that eventually became the 767-400er that Boeing flogged like a dead horse
Perhaps a nit-pic, but the 767X that Boeing proposed in 1989 became the 777 - by most accounts a pretty darn good and successful airplane. The airlines were able to convince Boeing that a 767 stretch wouldn't cut it and Boeing finally agreed to spend the money to create a new, very good, airplane.:ok:

The 767-400ER (and 757-300) was born of the Phil Condit school of management (that started in 1995) of not spending money on product development, do everything on the cheap, and make operators pay for the services that Boeing had always provided for free as 'product support'. It was management philosophy that nearly destroyed Boeing. :ugh:

[nitpicker330]

Tdracer----somebody call me :E

[The FUB]

Two seconds of your time please,

What's the sea-leavel flat rated temp of the Gnex 2B?

Thanks

[donpizmeov]

Outbacker,

You asked a very good question. I haven't got any numbers for the 748 and haven't had the privilege to fly one, but have a little time on the 777 and the 380. Two compare a 77W with a 380 on a low yield route like BNE-LHR-BNE would look like this.
77w
Total Fuel burned- 344.2t (so $344200 at $1000/t)
revenue from PAX using EK website return prices (AUD):
1st- 8pax = $80000
j - 42pax= $252000
y -320pax= $640000
total = $972000 less fuel cost = $627800

380
Total Fuel burned- 525.5t (so $525500 at $1000/t)
revenue from pax using EK website return prices (AUD)
1st- 14pax = $140000
j - 76pax = $456000
y - 389pax = $778000
total = $1374000 less fuel cost = $848500

Result is the 380 earns about $220000 extra on these sectors with low yield fairs. The margin would be greater when compared to a cx 77w as they don't cram the pax in like EK 777s and have some 54 less seats.

Now the 77W is TOW limited out of BNE-DXB (return) and would be limited to less than 8t Cargo. The 380 would carry about 10t on these sectors. The 380 DXB-LHR-DXB carries an extra 27 pax in Y, and still about 13t cargo. The 77W would carry about 18t to 20t of cargo on the DXB - LHR - DXB sectors.

On the DXB - LAX - DXB of about 16hr sector length, the 77W carries 37t of revenue for a fuel burn of 138t, or 3.74kg/t revenue, and the 380 will carry 56t revenue for a fuel burn of 207t or 3.69kg/t revenue. Both aircraft are TOW limited on this pairing.

The Don

[Sam Ting Wong]

Calculating yield from a website? Really?

[donpizmeov]

There is no mention of yield other than suggest it would be a low yield ticket as suggested by others on this forum. Its just a ticket price.

The don.

[tdracer]

What's the sea-leavel flat rated temp of the Gnex 2B?

Takeoff flat rate is ISA+15C, Max Con/Climb is ISA+10C.

We're looking at a new 'high-hot' rating that would be available for the PIP. The SLS rating wouldn't change, but the flat rate would extend to a higher temperature and there wouldn't be as much TO thrust decrease with altitude.

If the bean counters don't shoot it down, high-hot should be available sometime late next year.:E

[Sam Ting Wong]

Don,

appreciate your efforts. But just a bit sceptic this calculation can be done without all the insider information needed.

What about differences caused by:

- capital/finance/ lease cost
- depreciation/ resale value
- landing fees
- crew cost
- maintenance
- load factor fluctuation
- atc/ overflight cost
- communality with rest of fleet
- training cost
- frequency / connecting related cost

We pilots tend to concentrate on the issues we deal with and forget the rest imho.

[donpizmeov]

Very good Sam, I wouldn't have a freakin clue, hence no mention of them.

The Don

[falconeasydriver]

I reckon if CX can get A380's with 11 across in steerage...they'll take a brace or 6, otherwise, they are already operating plenty of 744's and 748f, I think a 748I order would make more sense.
Or maybe 30-40 7779X's?
Don's numbers need to be taken with a pinch of salt, remember that if you don't fill up the 380, you are still carrying around an extra 200T of aeroplane, so it pays to be on the right route with it.
All this could be a lot more academic if the US continues to go gang busters with its oil and gas production, jet could come back to as low as 400USD Tonne.

[donpizmeov]

Good one Falcon. Was gonna try and sell sim prep courses for all those A380 DEC jobs next. You know for airlines like ........ Bugga. Guess I need to stay with picking lotto numbers.

The don.

[Methersgate]

tdracer post 181:

Was this the aircraft that Peter Sutch christened "The hunchback of Washington State"?

[tdracer]

Was this the aircraft that Peter Sutch christened "The hunchback of Washington State"?

Sorry Methersgate, I'm unfamiliar with that quote (and Google didn't help). I wonder if he might have been refering to the 767 "AOA" (Airborne Optical Adjunct - no I don't know how they come up with these names).
It was the very first 767 (VA001) that was modified with a big hump on the top (I referred to it as a tumor) that housed a big liquid nitrogen cooled infrared tracking sensor. It was intended as a proof of concept of a system to track re-entering warheads as part of Reagan's "Star Wars" missile defense system.

[Methersgate]

Thanks for the input tdracer; sorry for sidetracking a fascinating thread. Peter was the Chairman of CX in 1989 and Boeing, desperate to avoid Cathay buying Airbuses to replace their Tri-Stars, produced a model of a 767 with an upper deck aft- hence Peter's nickname. CX didn't order it and none were built!

[swh]

767-X

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6047/6341007231_210617beb0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nielsamd/6341007231/)

[tdracer]

Now that you mention it, I do have a vague recollection of that monstrosity (easy to understand why I'd purged it from the memory).

The good news is that concept morphed into the 777.

Seeing the reminds me of a concept floating around before the 747-400 to put a full length upper deck on the 747 using a 767 fuselage top half. It would have been even more ugly than the A380 :uhoh:

[Old Aero Guy]

It was the "Hunchback of Mukilteo".

[Shutterbug]

Good read guys. Thanks for all the info. I'd call Don's numbers "ballpark," certainly appreciate the effort Don. While we can't know EK's in-house numbers, we certainly know their moves. Starting March '14 they're starting a 3rd 380 service on DXB-HKG-DXB, EK382/383. Are they really flying empty 380's back and forth and doubling down on this strategy? Hmmm.

[SMOC]

The question for CX is as before, how much volume is left over in the fwd and aft cargo of an A380 with a full load of pax?

This is why CX loves the 777ER as it's got the volume not just the weight with a full load.

I saw what looked like at least 6 double wide pallets go into the fwd cargo of a LHR bound 777 flight plus a few double wide pallets in the back, a 748I will struggle with that and the A380 more so.

[swh]

While we can't know EK's in-house numbers, we certainly know their moves.

We also know they have just posted a USD$600 million first half profit.

The question for CX is as before, how much volume is left over in the fwd and aft cargo of an A380 with a full load of pax?

It would depend on how it is configured. In planning they would look at 2-3 containers per equivalent aircraft (EQA=145 seat aircraft). The A380 would be 3 EQA, or between 6-9 containers for baggage. Rounding that up to 10 containers would leave 26-28 LD3 containers, or 8-9 pallets of space in the hold after passenger baggage. A typical configuration would be 8 LD3-AKE containers and 4 pallets in the forward hold, and 6 containers and 3 pallets in the aft hold. Each empty container/pallet has a weight of around 100 kg minimum.

In comparison the total available on the CX 744 without baggage is 30 LD3-AKE containers or 9 pallets, the 77W is 44 LD3-AKE containers or 14 pallets.

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Good to know they're heavily hedging their bets on that promising, juicy cargo market then.

...One way to avoid dealing with these pesky, whiny, needy passengers who keep asking for water all the time. I mean, imagine 500 of them! Where would you keep that many salt and pepper shakers?

:E

[Long Dong Silver]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXRLjzUy-ew&feature=youtube_gdata_player

8% more fuel efficient, 26% trip cost advantage, 30% more revenue cargo volume than the A380 :ok:

[cxorcist]

That's a bit of a cheesy video, but it certainly works better than a reciprocal video about the A380.

Imagine:

"I'm the world's only super jumbo and flying vagina. I look horrible on the outside, but it's what is inside that counts, unless we're referring to wing cracks which is different. As long as my owners sell all 500+ seats next to yours, I might actually make money. I'm proof that those Yanks aren't as exceptional as they think they are. Buy me and together we'll hope the world's economy does not take a turn for the worse. Because if it does, you're broke and I'm parked. Oh, don't worry about all that cargo talk, freight hauling is for ships and trains. I haul backpackers on their low budget vacations. Bon Voyage!"

[cxorcist]

I don't buy Boeing's claim for 8% better seat costs. That is based off an unrealistic number of seats in the -8I, specifically 467 which is about 50 or so too high. Trip costs and cargo capabilities are certainly much better for the -8I however. That much is accurate.

[donpizmeov]

swh,

Typical ek loading is as follows,

http://speedera.sky-cargo.com/english/Images/Boeing%20%20777-300ER.JPG
http://speedera.sky-cargo.com/english/Images/Airbus%20380-800%20New.jpg
so 8 LD36/PMC and 20 AKE for the 773ER and 6 LD36/PMC and 22 AKE for the 380. EK has the crew rest on the lower pax deck instead of the cargo hold to fit more containers.

the Don

[cxorcist]

Don,

How many AKE are typically used at EK for pax baggage on a full A380 vs a full 77W?

Thx.

[donpizmeov]

I am not sure CX. I have been told 3 or 4, but have no idea if that is right or not.

These extra containers are not the real problem over here. Our 77Ws are heavier than yours. They have an extra 57 seats, and have 8 1st class suites which weigh lots. They are TOW limited at about 11hr to 12hr sector length, depending on the temperature. The 380 will carry max ZFW out to 14hrs (for the old ones) and 15hrs (for the new ones). So on ULR flights the 380 is carrying the same if not more cargo as well as the extra Pax. Hence why ULR flying is drifting from the 77W to the 380 over here.

On a sector length under 12hrs the 777 can carry 10t of cargo more than the 380.

The Don

[bang ding ow]

cxorcist
I think you do the vagina a disservice.
Bang

[swh]

The 380 will carry max ZFW out to 14hrs (for the old ones) and 15hrs (for the new ones).

The new ones are you referring to EEF onwards ?

Any idea when these aircraft will be deployed on 215/225 ?

So on ULR flights the 380 is carrying the same if not more cargo as well as the extra Pax.

That will not be very popular statement to make around here.

On a sector length under 12hrs the 777 can carry 10t of cargo more than the 380.

Average cargo densities for AKE are around 190 kg/cubic meter, and 194 kg/cubic meter for under floor PMCs (main deck PMC tend to have lower densities). With your typical layout of "8 LD36/PMC and 20 AKE for the 773ER and 6 LD36/PMC and 22 AKE for the 380", makes for some interesting passenger numbers if you are saying the 77W is carrying 10t more cargo.

[donpizmeov]

From EEF on we are seeing about 600 to 700kg/hr saving in burn, depending on sector length. The latest ones are outdoing that by about another 150kg/hr. DOWs have also reduced by about 2 to 3t from the original ones.

215 starts in Dec 2013. Rumour has it that there is no rush for the 225 as premium loads aren't that good. So not sure about that one.

I know what you mean about the heresy talk. There are still a few flat earthers over here.

The Don

[Threethirty]

Just a small point, Cathay will never buy either the 748i or the Airbus A380.

[cxorcist]

330,

"Just a small point, Cathay will never buy either the 748i or the Airbus A380."

Do you know that for a fact? If so, I'd be interested in your source.

JS will not be CEO much longer. What's IC's position?

What if CX cannot get 777X until 2025? Can the 77W and A350 hold down the fort until then?

Does having a true flagship no longer matter?

No sarcasm, honest questions.

[The FUB]

Probably true enough CX will not buy the intercon. However, there are plenty of leasing options.

[geh065]

JS will not be CEO much longer. What's IC's position?

IC was quoted in an interview saying he did not see the need for a VLA at CX. Of course what is said in an interview does not always reflect reality and the policy of deny deny deny until the day of an announcement to the contrary seems normal SOP for so many companies/governments/organisations these days.

[Bye Bye Baby]

2 more 748F and 12x748i from the guys in the Pacific Nth West, signed sealed just not delivered.

[SMOC]

Sounds like something IC could announce at his first press conference once he takes the reigns.

[tdracer]

2 more 748F and 12x748i from the guys in the Pacific Nth West, signed sealed just not delivered.


Ah, and apparently not announced? I mean I'm sure Boeing would be delighted, but nothing official at the moment. Another 'surprise' to go with the 777X launch?:confused:

[Una Due Tfc]

Look unless we get a major pickup in the global market both VLA have failed in their passenger role. Airbus will hopefully make most of their money back by selling as close to their break even point as possible, Boeing will hopefully make most of their money back in freighters (748f is the only game in town atm). The USA is drilling everything dark at the moment and that will drop crude price, but in the long run, big twins are the future. How many pax routes justify the added range of the 748 over the largest twins? I think every time I look out the windows of my tower in 20 years every aircraft will look almost identical, which depresses me. Bring back Concorde and Tristars and VC-10s any day

[Frogman1484]

2 more 748F and 12x748i from the guys in the Pacific Nth West, signed sealed just not delivered....how many times have we heard this!?:{

[Frogman1484]

In the news this morning that EK is looking to order 50 more A380.

Do you think they would order that many if they did not make money?

Cx is too in love with the notion of Cargo to realize that it is not going to come back to 2009 levels. All of our red ink is coming from cargo in hong kong and in china!:ugh:

[SMOC]

Nice start for the 777X

Boeing has formally launched its new 777X family with orders and commitments by four airlines for 259 aircraft at the Dubai air show today.


DUBAI: Boeing formally launches 777X family with 259 commitments (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dubai-boeing-formally-launches-777x-family-with-259-commitments-393138/)

Plus the standard 50 x A380s for EK taking them to 140!

Emirates orders 50 additional A380s, boosting fleet to 140 | Airbus News & Events (http://www.airbus.com/newsevents/news-events-single/detail/emirates-orders-50-additional-a380s-boosting-fleet-to-140/)

[AQIS Boigu]

You beat me SMOC...and what is CX doing???

[Yonosoy Marinero]

and what is CX doing???

Don't know, but forget about the A380 at this stage. At the rate the Middle East is picking 777Xs off the shelf, there won't be any delivery available for CX (or anybody else) for years. Unless they pay a premium...

Funny how CX has gone from being the launch customer of everything to the quiet one who politely waits for everyone else to take their pick.

But hey, the 748i is waiting in the corner, raising its hand...
;)

[broadband circuit]

At the rate the Middle East is picking 777Xs off the shelf, there won't be any delivery available for CX (or anybody else) for years. Unless they pay a premium...

Very true. 259 initial 777X orders from only 4 companies. Assuming they can get 4 a month through the production line (probably not likely), that's about 5 & 1/2 years. At 3 a month, that's just over 7 years, until anyone else can get one (unless they pay a premium to one of those carriers as noted). By that stage, there'll be talk about a 777-superX, or a 350-1000X, or maybe something new.....

The numbers quoted are staggering for EK alone. 50 x 380, 150 x 777x. CX barely have 150 aircraft total at the moment, let alone 150 of a single type.

I'm sure that it's been noted somewhere before that many of these will be replacements for EKs 777-300ERs. On the issue of no 777Xs being available, pretty much the only way to get a 777 will be to get a 2nd hand -300ER from one of the -X launch customers.

[buggaluggs]

Steady boys, just because nothing was announced in flashing neon at Dubai doesn't mean a deal hasn't already been done! CX VERY rarely if ever make these types of announcements at an Airshow, especially in Emirates back yard. We already know the CX bean counters have been foaming at the mouth over the 777x, and if I was a betting man, I'd have a few $ on a deal to lease the 747-8i, and buy the 777x for the long term. ;)

[geh065]

I believe that Boeing currently produce eight 777s a month. When the 77X comes along there is no reason that they could not ramp up to this level given the demand is there. Boeing may have to produce the 77X away from Paine Field given the latest troubles with the machinists union so who knows what their 777X production capacity will be.

[tdracer]

I believe that Boeing currently produce eight 777s a month. When the 77X comes along there is no reason that they could not ramp up to this level given the demand is there.


777 is currently at 8.3/month - 100/year. Rumors that they might try to increase that to 10/month in the future (they just loaded the first 787 body section at the 10/month rate).

There will likely be some disruption during the transition from the current 777 to the -9, I'm sure within a year or so of certification and initial deliveries they'll be back to at least the current 8.3/month rate.

One open question is, if they build the 777X other than Everett, will they rob the fuselage tooling from Everett, or duplicate it? If they decide to go elsewhere and duplicate the fuselage tooling, it would give the capability to continue to build -300ER/200LRs, while at the same time creating the -8/-9 capability elsewhere. That in turn could eventually turn into the capability of two 777 productions lines with capability of ~16/month if the demand is there :sad:

[cxorcist]

I think it a bit silly to assume that all 259 ordered by four airlines will account for the first 259 777Xs produced. It is very likely that there is still availability in the early airframes. CX may very well have already ordered some of those.

As for the Intercontinental at CX, wouldn't there be some face lost for JS if we were to end up with them? I realize he's not Asian, but he lives and works in a Asian world, for now anyways.

[Oval3Holer]

JS recently changed his citizenship from USA to China.

Salt and pepper, anyone?

Most pilfered items taken off Cathay Pacific | South China Morning Post (http://www.scmp.com/business/money/wealth/article/1359289/most-pilfered-items-taken-cathay-pacific)

[iceman50]

A tax dodge perhaps?

[Una Due Tfc]

More big twins = more jobs. Eg 15 777xs means more pilots, more mechanics, more cc and ahem.....more controllers :} than 10 or 12 748s/A380s, you should all be happy!

[spannersatcx]

more mechanics yeah right!

[Una Due Tfc]

Well line maintenance at least :8

[cxorcist]

The above is a good point. I've advocated in the past for all B788s as that is the smallest long haul aircraft available. Obviously, that is wishful thinking but I agree that big twins (as opposed to VLA) make demand for various groups of airline employees greater. As such, we should be glad because eventually it will help market forces tip in our favor.

[Ex Douglas Driver]

The BBC seem to have heard a whisper:

Dubai Air Show: the sky's the limit

Meanwhile, Cathay Pacific and Saudi Arabian Airlines are also expected to be spending big. And Dubai's fast-growing budget carrier Flydubai has signalled its intention to buy more aircraft.


BBC News - Dubai Air Show: the sky's the limit (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24902207)

[spannersatcx]

Well line maintenance at least :8
nope doesn't work like that, more crews yes, more cabin crew yes, more line maintenance staff no!

[SMOC]

No more 777 orders from CNBC....

American aircraft manufacturer Boeing kicked off the Dubai Air Show on Sunday by announcing 259 orders for its new 777X, totaling over $95 billion at list prices, but Shephard W. Hill, the president of Boeing International told CNBC he did not anticipate further order announcements at the event.

Boeing President: 'Not anticipating any more 777 orders' (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101205386)

B748I & A380 :}

[cxorcist]

CX 777Xs, and any other orders, will be announced at the earnings release press conference next year. You don't have to be here very long to figure that out.

[gennadius01]

Looks like CX took delivery of one of those PIP certification waiting 8Fs today. The commercial aviation blog over at Aviation Week had the following information:


The first Boeing 747-8F to be powered with the performance improvement package (PIP) version of the GEnx-2B67 has been delivered to Cathay Pacific from the manufacturer’s Everett site in Washington. The aircraft is the Hong Kong-based carrier’s 11th 747-8F.

The upgraded engine forms the core of a broader set of aerodynamic and structural improvements that have been introduced since the freighter and passenger versions of the aircraft first entered service in 2011 and 2012 respectively. “Together with the other improvements made since entry-into-service on the 747-8F at the end of 2011, the engine PIP bundles 1.8% with another 1.7% for a total of 3.5% (fuel burn),” says 747-8 chief project engineer Bruce Dickinson. In addition to drag reduction and improvements to the cruise efficiency of the wing, the empty weight of the 747-8 has been reduced by almost 8,000 lb, while payload-range capability has been boosted through a 12,000 lb. increase in maximum take-off weight. The GEnx-2B67 PIP incorporates an all-new low-pressure turbine, as well as compressor, combustor and turbine improvements derived from the second batch of upgrades (PIP II) devised for the GEnx-1B engine on the 787. GE provisionally expected a 1.6% fuel burn improvement but, based on positive test data, upped this to 1.8%. The package of upgrades was launched after pre-delivery flight tests revealed a fuel burn performance shortfall in excess of 2%.
Original blog post here (http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbb&plckPostId=Blog%3a7a78f54e-b3dd-4fa6-ae6e-dff2ffd7bdbbPost%3ae78770a1-7242-47ec-9e94-a1db071f1460).

I've mentioned elsewhere that I think these numbers have been discussed or mentioned before, but I don't know if all of them have been presented together as an improvement over the initial deliveries.

I was wondering however, is the change in empty weight and change in payload-range capability factored into the fuel burn numbers? Or are those independent elements that must be factored into overall performance of the aircraft as well?

Regardless, congratulations to Boeing and GE on getting the PIP out, and to Cathay for finally being able to take delivery of their PIP'd birds that have been sitting and waiting for the certification. Now it will be interesting to see the order that includes LN 1505, and to see how many more 8Fs are coming, and if there are any potential 8Is that may be tagging along. :-)

[sanook]

Here you go
Boeing will manufacture the new 777X in Hong Kong. Put up a couple of nice production lines next to HAECO. Willing labour and a quick delivery trip to boot. Can now jump the queue....

[tdracer]

Looks like CX took delivery of one of those PIP certification waiting 8Fs today. The commercial aviation blog over at Aviation Week had the following information:

Getting PIP certified was a much bigger struggle than it should have been, but we finally got there.
Schedule shows two more Cathay -8Fs to deliver in the next couple days - one tomorrow, one on Monday. Six total PIP equipped -8Fs are supposed to deliver before Christmas.

Good thing, it was getting pretty crowded with 747-8s around here :O

[cxorcist]

What I wonder is how the upgraded -8I will compare to the the 777-9.

tdracer, any idea?

[tdracer]

What I wonder is how the upgraded -8I will compare to the the 777-9

I'm not privy to that level of detail. I suspect the 777-9 will have a little better seat mile costs, but a lot depends on how they configure the aircraft.
Some of the capacity increase on the 777X is by re-contouring the sidewalls to get a few more inches of width - combined with a slightly narrower seat the can get another seat per row in coach (going from 9 abreast to 10 abreast). So the potential is there to cram a lot of seats in coach which would give really good seat-mile costs. OTOH, much of the popularity of the current 777 with passengers is due to the relatively wide seating - which would obviously be lost with 10 abreast seating :sad:.

As I noted previously, the 747-8 has quite a bit more floor space relative to the 777-9, with the additional flexibility of potentially using the ceiling area aft of the 'hump' for sleeping quarters.

So I'm guessing a lot of it has to do with what passenger they want to target - a low fare cattle car economy section with a nice business/first class for those willing to spend the money would probably favor the 777-9. If they want to go for the premium product with private sleepers and such (and prices to match), with a relatively roomy economy section - then a 747-8 (or A380 :O) would probably make more sense.

[gennadius01]

Getting PIP certified was a much bigger struggle than it should have been, but we finally got there.
Schedule shows two more Cathay -8Fs to deliver in the next couple days - one tomorrow, one on Monday. Six total PIP equipped -8Fs are supposed to deliver before Christmas.
Was it all bureaucratic elements? Or were there other hiccups along the way?

Also, with respect to the information in the Aviation Week blog, can you shed some insight into the 3.5% figure and how it relates to the reduced empty weight and increased payload-range capability? Or what about the FMC update and changes to the tail tank to allow it to remain full for a longer period of time? Will those bring the complete PIP (all three elements) to an over 2% gain?

It should be fun to watch the stream of deliveries in the next few days, and definitely interesting to see if some of the talked about potential orders and commitments come about now that the PIP is in service.

Thanks again for all of your feedback and information!

[Yonosoy Marinero]

TOH, much of the popularity of the current 777 with passengers is due to the relatively wide seating - which would obviously be lost with 10 abreast seating

Not that CX cares much about pax comfort.
If they prefer to risk losing their premium pax by sticking to the horrible first class and run-of-the-mill biz class of the T7 to seek immediate fuel savings, I doubt they have the slightest hesitation about skimping on the cattle-class dwellers...

[tdracer]

Was it all bureaucratic elements? Or were there other hiccups along the way? Oh my, where to start :sad:

Boeing missed guarantees pretty badly on the initial 747-8. I've been through several programs over the years - usually we miss on something - weight, drag, or SFC - but exceed on at least one of the others and the result is we meet (or are at least close) on the final numbers. On the 747-8 we missed on all three :ugh:. So there has been an on-going effort since EIS to fix all three. We've cut out close to 10,000 lbs empty weight, there have been drag improvements, and the PIP was good for 2% in mission fuel burn and basically got us to what we originally promised for SFC.

The problem became, as soon as the operators learned of the PIP, they lost interest in taking new airplanes until we could give them the PIP. So the pressure was on to certify the PIP as soon as possible so that we could deliver airplanes. The result was we were given a schedule that we would have struggled to meet even if everything went perfectly. Then there were discoveries during flight test - nothing unusual that we couldn't readily fix - but it took time that wasn't in the schedule. Then the Ice Crystal Icing issue hit the fan, which turned into a major bureaucratic hurdle. The last couple months have not been fun :(
We saw ~2% mission fuel burn for the PIP, and we got some other small engine fuel burn improvements since EIS with various FADEC adjustments. I know there have been meaningful empty weight reductions, and we bumped the max TO weight by 10,000 lbs (didn't really require any real changes, just using margins that we weren't using), and there have been tweaks to the airplane to reduce drag. But I'm an engine guy - I don't know the details of how they figure a 10k increase in MTOW and a similar reduction in empty weight equates to a ~1.5% improvement in fuel burn.

[gennadius01]

But I'm an engine guy - I don't know the details of how they figure a 10k increase in MTOW and a similar reduction in empty weight equates to a ~1.5% improvement in fuel burn.
Once again, I believe we all appreciate your candor and the insight you lend to this discussion. I guess you did kind of answer my question, in that the decrease in empty weight and increase in payload-range, as well as some of the other improvements/tweaks are what actually accounts for that extra 1.5% to 1.7% in fuel burn that they are saving. I didn't know if those were independent data points or if they were to be taken together.

I do remember early on, even though there was the well known miss on SFC overall, that Boeing and some customers were reporting 1% better fuel efficiency than what was expected. Is this factored into all this current discussion? If the original miss was approx 2.7%, but customers were reporting 1% better than expected, does that mean they were getting 1.7% worse than the originally promised SFC? Or is that part of the early tweaks and changes that clawed back some of the 1.5% to 1.7% that is talked about before the PIP?

In either case, does that mean that the frames with all of the improvements and the PIP will now be exceeding guarantees? In either case, hopefully it means that there is a long and healthy life out there for the 8Fs, and perhaps even some room for the 8Is to find a role, especially in the near term.

Specific to this thread, perhaps the composition of CX's follow on order that LN 1505 points to will include some 747-8Is to go along with their additional freighters.

[SweepTheLeg]

21 777-9X's coming starting 2021...

Doesn't look good for the 380 or 747-8...

[Sam Ting Wong]

A rather modest expansion plan in other words.. Could be even replacements...

[SloppyJoe]

Replacing what? Enhanced A330s, 777-300ER, A350-900/1000, 747-8F?

If they plan to keep all of the above mentioned aircraft and dispose of everything else, without adding to any orders, it is still almost a 10% fleet size increase in the next 10 years. Yes it is not to the extent of some operators expansions but at least it is expansion.

In the last 5 years they have been ordering a huge number of airframes, what makes you think this 777 order is the end of the new aircraft?

[geh065]

The regional fleet (older A330s, 772 and 773) will need to be replaced in the coming few years. None of what has been ordered so far are planes optimised for regional flying. No doubt they are looking at the 787-10 or the A350R, or to 'mis-use' their longhaul fleet by flying shorthaul without any dedicated short haul planes. (Unlikely in my opinion).

[SloppyJoe]

Ordering an A350R for regional, this is the one slated to go LHR - SYD non stop.

[swh]

Ordering an A350R for regional, this is the one slated to go LHR - SYD non stop.

It is the regional model that SQ has ordered.

Singapore launches lower-weight 'regional' A350 (http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/singapore-launches-lower-weight-regional-a350-388540/)

[SloppyJoe]

Oh OK, not the R then.

[geh065]

The A300R has an R that denotes a longer range but the A350's "R" seems to denote 'regional', just for maximum confusion.

[tdracer]

In either case, does that mean that the frames with all of the improvements and the PIP will now be exceeding guarantees? In either case, hopefully it means that there is a long and healthy life out there for the 8Fs, and perhaps even some room for the 8Is to find a role, especially in the near term.

My understanding is that, with the PIP, we're meeting or exceeding guarantees. And I'm also hearing that, with the notable exception of the Ice Crystal Icing, they are really happy with the airplanes. Fuel burn is much better than the 747-400, reliability has been good, and dispatch reliability is just shy of 99%.:ok:

I sure hope your right and the market for the -8/8F picks up. This will likely be the last major program I do before I retire, and I'd really like to see it be successful. Rumor mill says there are some significant new 747 orders in the works, but time will tell.:rolleyes:

[bang ding ow]

cathay just announced today a NEW (sat 28th dec) order for a futher 3 777-300ers and 1 more 747-8F....jees.... i can smell an interim deal for the -8i even stronger now!! come on tdracer let's get this deal done...:D
bang

[gennadius01]

cathay just announced today a NEW (sat 28th dec) order for a futher 3 777-300ers and 1 more 747-8F....jees.... i can smell an interim deal for the -8i even stronger now!! come on tdracer let's get this deal done

With 14 8F's, it would most likely be easy for them to use some 8i's as a sub-fleet without it being too taxing in terms of maintenance and spares. It would definitely be great, in my opinion, to see some Intercontinentals in CX livery, not to mention just having another major customer for the 747-8 that would be flying both variants.

Perhaps there will be something after they get their 3 recently delivered PIP birds flying missions for a few months and they see what those numbers look like.

[cxorcist]

If CX never flies the Intercontinental, the reason will be because it makes too much sense. The demand for the seats, both higher quality first class and overall numbers, is there on certain routes. The maintenance and logistical support is already in place. The crews are already trained. Four engine performance would help in places like JNB. The PIP -8I has better seat costs than the 77W and similar seat costs to the much larger A380 (but carries more cargo). Oh, and I've heard you could get a great deal on the Intercontinental right now. What's not to love?

Nope, CX will pass and wait until 2021+ for the dream machine which will share many of the current 77W's struggles. Namely poor first class and two engine runway performance. The A350s will never reach the east coast of NAM with a CX payload, although it might be a great airplane for Europe and down under. I guess I just don't see the big picture...

[swh]

The PIP -8I has better seat costs than the 77W and similar seat costs to the much larger A380 (but carries more cargo).

What are you smoking ? The only way a 747-8i beats the 773-300ER or A380-800 in real airline configurations is if the cost of financing the engines and airframes is well below market rates.

Oh, and I've heard you could get a great deal on the Intercontinental right now. What's not to love?

ANY airline can get a great deal on a 747-8i, and no one is buying. Boeing is desperate to get 747-8 customers, they offered CX an "amazing" deal on them as interim lift before the 777-9X, CX did not bite.

The A350s will never reach the east coast of NAM with a CX payload, although it might be a great airplane for Europe and down under. I guess I just don't see the big picture...

You said the same about the A380, never be able to get to NAM, does not have enroute alternates to fly to Europe etc. Many operators are doing exactly what you said not possible. EK carry more cargo ULH on their A380s than they do on the 77W.

A380s have replaced 77W on the DXB-LAX, which is a couple of hundred miles further than HKG-JFK (EK flew DXB-LAX in 15:07 last week).

CX will be flying A350s to both the east and west coast of NAM. If they really wanted to push it, the A350-900 could do MCO & IAH non-stop if there was a business case for it. New ULH routes will never appear unless CX receives sufficient upfront commitments from companies wanting to use the service.

Have a look at this The Super Twin Battle: A350-1000 versus 777-9X | AirInsight (http://airinsight.com/2013/11/08/the-super-twin-battle-a350-1000-versus-777-9x/)

[SMOC]

For the conspiracy theorists amongst you!

Are the recent 748F, JFK-HKG & ORD-HKG polar flights a real time winter performance evaluation of how a 748i would perform???

:}

[SMT Member]

Some of the capacity increase on the 777X is by re-contouring the sidewalls to get a few more inches of width - combined with a slightly narrower seat the can get another seat per row in coach (going from 9 abreast to 10 abreast). So the potential is there to cram a lot of seats in coach which would give really good seat-mile costs. OTOH, much of the popularity of the current 777 with passengers is due to the relatively wide seating - which would obviously be lost with 10 abreast seating

I think you are a few years behind the times mate. Several airlines have gone the 10-abreast route on their 777s, and these days the number of 777s delivered with 10-abreast config. far outweigh those with a 9-abreast ditto. EK is the major proponent, but it is becoming the new 'standard'.

This suggests the re-contouring will either be used to reclaim some of the space lost when going to 10-abreast, or it will be used for expansion to 11-abreast.

A 777-9X at 11-abreast will sport fantastic CASM figures, but then again so would an A380 with 12-abreast down stairs and 9 upstairs. It may be possible, but it would not be a very comfortable experience for the poor sods occupying those seats for 10+ hours at a time. I've had several wanders down the back end of EK aircraft whilst enroute, and the 77Ws are utter sardine cans. One can understand why an economy-class passenger would go out of their way to get on an A380 instead, who offer much more width at shoulder and hip level as well as much wider aisles. Not to mention a much reduced noise level, but that's besides the point.

Point is, 10-abreast 77Ws are the bean counters dream machine, and as long as they rule the roost that's where the game is at.

[donpizmeov]

I think you may have hit the nail on the head. I believe the new 777 sales pitch is "We don't have much leg room, but we have plenty of seats". And the wing tips will fold...How cool is that!


The Don

[gennadius01]

Originally posted by SMOC

For the conspiracy theorists amongst you!

Are the recent 748F, JFK-HKG & ORD-HKG polar flights a real time winter performance evaluation of how a 748i would perform???Hah! Interesting. While not necessarily explicitly for that purpose, I would assume that fleet planning takes a look at all the information that they can get their hands on.

I think this question of CX looking at the 747-8i is still a very interesting one, especially with them now getting to look at the PIP performance directly.