View Full Version : Goodbye to the shuttle
Thunderbird4
10th Sep 2019, 21:50
In the spring of next year the JFK shuttle will be no more..... (https://thepointsguy.com/news/cathay-pacific-will-end-its-new-york-vancouver-flights-next-spring/)
It also appears that there will be no more A50 to YVR and first class service to one of CX's prime destinations.
Foxdeux
11th Sep 2019, 05:20
In the spring of next year the JFK shuttle will be no more..... (https://thepointsguy.com/news/cathay-pacific-will-end-its-new-york-vancouver-flights-next-spring/)
It also appears that there will be no more A50 to YVR and first class service to one of CX's prime destinations.
I'm just happy they're bringing the A350-1000 to YYZ.
cxorcist
12th Sep 2019, 04:58
I'm just happy they're bringing the A350-1000 to YYZ.
Me too! The passenger experience on the A50 is amazing. What a great jet!
Samsonite
12th Sep 2019, 14:32
I'm just happy they're bringing the A350-1000 to YYZ.
Ya will be great during fall and spring but good luck in the Summer heat and the Winter contaminated ops. Nothing like bringing a load of paxs but not their bags which happens frequently in EWR and IAD already. The 350 is a great 12 hour airplane and as most airlines including CX realized to late that the 1000 numbers are bogus and is the reason most airlines with orders tried to convert the 1000 orders to the 900. The 1000 might be a great airplane when the NEO version comes out.
cxorcist
12th Sep 2019, 18:06
Ya will be great during fall and spring but good luck in the Summer heat and the Winter contaminated ops. Nothing like bringing a load of paxs but not their bags which happens frequently in EWR and IAD already. The 350 is a great 12 hour airplane and as most airlines including CX realized to late that the 1000 numbers are bogus and is the reason most airlines with orders tried to convert the 1000 orders to the 900. The 1000 might be a great airplane when the NEO version comes out.
NEO version? It won’t be with RR XWB engines. Those are tapped out at 97K. Maybe the RR UltraFan??? That seems to be a long ways off...
Veruka Salt
13th Sep 2019, 01:03
The 1000 at 316T does fine with ‘only’ 97K/side, just as I’m sure the -9X will do fine with only 105K/side at 351T ....
cxorcist
13th Sep 2019, 14:38
The 1000 at 316T does fine with ‘only’ 97K/side, just as I’m sure the -9X will do fine with only 105K/side at 351T ....
Really??? Is that why CX is seeking RNP 0.11 engine out performance procedures from HK to get more A350 payload capabilities? HK is a sea level airport and not exceptionally hot compared to ME3 airports.
It is pretty obvious that A350 could use more thrust and/or more lift from the wings. The -9X will have a lot more lift from its wing than the 77W, enabling lesser thrust on takeoff.
I’m not saying A350 is not an efficient aircraft, it is, but no one is impressed when EWR passenger baggage has to be driven up to JFK and hauled by the 777. It’s not a true 15 hour aircraft in CX’s current pax seating configuration.
Frogman1484
14th Sep 2019, 02:50
The bags only have to go to JFK when they shut down the long runway for works. The rest of the time the A350 can carry a full,load out of EWR.
cappt
14th Sep 2019, 02:50
What do you like about the lack of overhead bins or personnel air vents in biz class?
Oasis
14th Sep 2019, 07:07
Why is Airbus always the 'weak' airplane? Always trouble with high elevation in the summer, can only a full two out of the three fuel, pax, cargo..
and to top it off, its always a surprise apparently that the glossy folders don't accurately describe the actual performance once the aircraft is on the line. You'd think that the purchasing team would know by now...
Natca
14th Sep 2019, 07:36
The bags only have to go to JFK when they shut down the long runway for works. The rest of the time the A350 can carry a full,load out of EWR.
Thats a lie. Any wind, heat, rain, ice, mels will result in limit. Key word is full load, which is typically not planned for there.
Australopithecus
14th Sep 2019, 07:51
Why is Airbus always the 'weak' airplane? Always trouble with high elevation in the summer, can only a full two out of the three fuel, pax, cargo..
and to top it off, its always a surprise apparently that the glossy folders don't accurately describe the actual performance once the aircraft is on the line. You'd think that the purchasing team would know by now...
There's only so much under-power that even a great wing can overcome.
Veruka Salt
14th Sep 2019, 09:51
Thats a lie. Any wind, heat, rain, ice, mels will result in limit. Key word is full load, which is typically not planned for there.
Wot ...... like any other FAR 25/CS 25 certified twin, including the 777?
Veruka Salt
14th Sep 2019, 10:04
Why is Airbus always the 'weak' airplane? Always trouble with high elevation in the summer, can only a full two out of the three fuel, pax, cargo..
and to top it off, its always a surprise apparently that the glossy folders don't accurately describe the actual performance once the aircraft is on the line. You'd think that the purchasing team would know by now...
15 hr sector. 777ER vs. A35K. Round figures so Boeing pilots can understand it:
777ER: 351T MTOW - 130T Fuel Required - 169T BW = Available payload of 52T, a 16T reduction from max.
A35K: 316T MTOW - 102T Fuel Required - 149T BW = Available payload of 65T, a 9T reduction from max.
Have flown both A & B brands, & have no bone to pick with either of them, but that took < 5 mins on IntraCX to work out. Hence why the Airbus has been taking most of the LH flying this past 3 years.
Natca
14th Sep 2019, 12:41
15 hr sector. 777ER vs. A35K. Round figures so Boeing pilots can understand it:
777ER: 351T MTOW - 130T Fuel Required - 169T BW = Available payload of 52T, a 16T reduction from max.
A35K: 316T MTOW - 102T Fuel Required - 149T BW = Available payload of 59T, a 16T reduction from max.
Have flown both A & B brands, & have no bone to pick with either of them, but that took < 5 mins on IntraCX to work out. Hence why the Airbus has been taking most of the LH flying this past 3 years.
A359 much less.
Veruka Salt
14th Sep 2019, 13:07
Yes, but the A359 is 76T lighter than the 773ER, yet carries only 10T less payload over a 15 hr sector, whilst burning 25% less gas.
275T MTOW - 95T Fuel Required - 138T BW = 42T available payload.
A35K: 316T MTOW - 102T Fuel Required - 149T BW = Available payload of 59T, a 16T reduction from max.
This Boeing pilot is having problems with that math. :E
Regards
csd
Veruka Salt
14th Sep 2019, 20:34
Fair call csd :eek: