340 future?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: transit
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
340 future?
Hi guys,
I'm joining CX as an SO shortly and will be going on the 340. With the ongoing delivery of the 777's are CX still going to be operating the 340's on their current routes? Or will they gradually be phased out as has been suggested on previous posts.
Also from what date do the 744's take over the JHB route( is there a specific date or does this vary from year to year)??
Any insights would be much appreciated.
Cheers
I'm joining CX as an SO shortly and will be going on the 340. With the ongoing delivery of the 777's are CX still going to be operating the 340's on their current routes? Or will they gradually be phased out as has been suggested on previous posts.
Also from what date do the 744's take over the JHB route( is there a specific date or does this vary from year to year)??
Any insights would be much appreciated.
Cheers
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The first of the A340-600s has already left the operating fleet. The other two will leave by the end of Autumn.
The rest of the A340-300s are here to stay apart from maybe the 4 which are leased. CX fleet figures quoted by management for 2012 indicate 11 of the 15 A340-300s still in the fleet.
As for JNB, I believe the 744 is put on at the start of the northern hemisphere winter schedule. (end of October I think it is?)
The rest of the A340-300s are here to stay apart from maybe the 4 which are leased. CX fleet figures quoted by management for 2012 indicate 11 of the 15 A340-300s still in the fleet.
As for JNB, I believe the 744 is put on at the start of the northern hemisphere winter schedule. (end of October I think it is?)
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Blizz
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ive been developed a interest in what happen after A340? (those 300s-) The company bought aircrafts from both Boeing and Airbus with balancing amounts in old days. But now they looks bit closer to Boeing.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Gweriniaeth Cymru
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay Pacific Airways plans to phase out 23 747-400s beginning in 2013 in an effort to realize fuel savings of 22% per seat. COO John Slosar told Hong Kong media that the carrier is considering a variety of replacement aircraft and that "the A380 is also an option."
the a340-300 is pretty efficient in the crz, so i suspect in these fuel crazy days that cx will keep hold of them for a little while. the a340-600 strangley seems to have been an experiment for the polar route and therefore a forerunner for the 777ER currently plying the HKG-JFK route. read into this what you will.
regards,
N1 Vibes
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: Earth
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Economies of the -400 vs. the A340.?
We were discussing this on the flight deck the other day so I had a look at a couple of Flight Plans to LHR on the same day - 1 x A343, 1 x B744. For accuarate comparision I used Corr/1000kg LDG wt to get both plans up to MZFW (i.e. max payload).
Back of the envelope result:
B744 burn 132.8T payload 64.9T Time 11.43, kg fuel used/kg payload = 2.04
A343 burn 91.7T payload 47.0T Time 12.18, kg fuel used/kg payload = 1.95
i.e 3-4% difference at max payload. Then you have to account for all the other costs e.g. cost of crew spread over 385 pax vs. 250-280 pax, Time cost of the extra 30+ mins flight time, pax preferences (particularly F & J class etc.), maintainence cost etc. etc.
Also note that 3-4% is often the difference between 2 aircraft in the same fleet due to performance degradation.
Therefore I suspect any decison to get rid of one or the other will be demand based - are lots of people still flying therefore needing high capacity aircraft? Will there be a cutback in demand meaning smaller planes are the answer?
Of course the B773-ER beats the pants of both of them on fuel economy.
We were discussing this on the flight deck the other day so I had a look at a couple of Flight Plans to LHR on the same day - 1 x A343, 1 x B744. For accuarate comparision I used Corr/1000kg LDG wt to get both plans up to MZFW (i.e. max payload).
Back of the envelope result:
B744 burn 132.8T payload 64.9T Time 11.43, kg fuel used/kg payload = 2.04
A343 burn 91.7T payload 47.0T Time 12.18, kg fuel used/kg payload = 1.95
i.e 3-4% difference at max payload. Then you have to account for all the other costs e.g. cost of crew spread over 385 pax vs. 250-280 pax, Time cost of the extra 30+ mins flight time, pax preferences (particularly F & J class etc.), maintainence cost etc. etc.
Also note that 3-4% is often the difference between 2 aircraft in the same fleet due to performance degradation.
Therefore I suspect any decison to get rid of one or the other will be demand based - are lots of people still flying therefore needing high capacity aircraft? Will there be a cutback in demand meaning smaller planes are the answer?
Of course the B773-ER beats the pants of both of them on fuel economy.
Guest
Posts: n/a
330-200
what about A330-200?
I have done some research,
A340-300 w/max load, passengers 287, 275 tonnes for 7200 nm.
A330-200 w/max load, passengers 293 , 230 tonnes for 6750 nm.
Both carrying 10-12 cabin crews which similar to the A330-300 in fleets,
HKG-LHR 5209 nm, HKG-AMS 5016 nm, HKG-CDG 5187 nm, HKG-FCO 5021 nm
HKG-JNB 5762 nm, HKG-YVR 5555 nm, HKG-AKL 4943 nm, etc etc. ETOPS 180/207 on both transpacific flight and Europe flights. A330-200 can fly most of A340-300 long haul operations with slightly decrease in cargo load, plus twin-engines efficient.
I have done some research,
A340-300 w/max load, passengers 287, 275 tonnes for 7200 nm.
A330-200 w/max load, passengers 293 , 230 tonnes for 6750 nm.
Both carrying 10-12 cabin crews which similar to the A330-300 in fleets,
HKG-LHR 5209 nm, HKG-AMS 5016 nm, HKG-CDG 5187 nm, HKG-FCO 5021 nm
HKG-JNB 5762 nm, HKG-YVR 5555 nm, HKG-AKL 4943 nm, etc etc. ETOPS 180/207 on both transpacific flight and Europe flights. A330-200 can fly most of A340-300 long haul operations with slightly decrease in cargo load, plus twin-engines efficient.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Of course the B773-ER beats the pants of both of them on fuel economy.
Does it really??? Maybe the 744 but not the A340-300"
Are you kidding me? 773ER is by far the most efficient a/c in the fleet. Simultaneous flight plans were run for quite a while on the 773ER and 346 for JFK, and the differences were huge. ER is faster, carries way more payload and burns approx 17T less fuel per sector. The ER actually carries more payload than the 744, although of course has less seats.
Does it really??? Maybe the 744 but not the A340-300"
Are you kidding me? 773ER is by far the most efficient a/c in the fleet. Simultaneous flight plans were run for quite a while on the 773ER and 346 for JFK, and the differences were huge. ER is faster, carries way more payload and burns approx 17T less fuel per sector. The ER actually carries more payload than the 744, although of course has less seats.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 340
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
advisory,
CX does not have a 744 that can lift 64.9 t, average across the fleet is max payload is 60.7 t on the 744. 47.0 t is about right for the 343, if memory serves correct the 343 route is longer than the 744 route.
2 cents,
I think that is a bit of an old wives tail emanating from crew on the 777 fleet to bolster/justify themselves as being the new "senior fleet".
On average, the CX 773ER aircraft are about 4,100 kg above the Boeing spec weight in our config, max payload is about 65.7 t (spec is 69.8 t), the current CX 346 is about 63.0 t (spec is 68.6 t). Our 346 aircraft are the early MSN aircraft, they are heavier than current new build.
The story that you don't hear was the comparison was between a Boeing spec aircraft and the current CX 346 aircraft, not a real comparison between the real configuration on the new 773ER to a new 346HGW.
The CX 346 aircraft are MZFW limited to 245t, current new build 346HGW aircraft MZFW is 251 t (MTOW was also increased by 12 t), the real difference in payload between the two types is small, on spec the 773ER is supposed to lift 69.8 t, and the 346HGW 74.6 t. The 346 does burn about 800 kg/hr more than the 773ER, but in reality as you would know, airlines seldom go full with passengers/payload, but you would have the extra fuel burn if you had the 346. Fuel is only part of the cost of operating the aircraft.
The 346 has a significant advantage in terms of payload lift out of JNB even with the extra thrust bump on the 773ER, at 30 deg off the same runway the 773ER will only lift about 11 t more than a 343, well behind the 744/346 capability.
CX does not have a 744 that can lift 64.9 t, average across the fleet is max payload is 60.7 t on the 744. 47.0 t is about right for the 343, if memory serves correct the 343 route is longer than the 744 route.
2 cents,
I think that is a bit of an old wives tail emanating from crew on the 777 fleet to bolster/justify themselves as being the new "senior fleet".
On average, the CX 773ER aircraft are about 4,100 kg above the Boeing spec weight in our config, max payload is about 65.7 t (spec is 69.8 t), the current CX 346 is about 63.0 t (spec is 68.6 t). Our 346 aircraft are the early MSN aircraft, they are heavier than current new build.
The story that you don't hear was the comparison was between a Boeing spec aircraft and the current CX 346 aircraft, not a real comparison between the real configuration on the new 773ER to a new 346HGW.
The CX 346 aircraft are MZFW limited to 245t, current new build 346HGW aircraft MZFW is 251 t (MTOW was also increased by 12 t), the real difference in payload between the two types is small, on spec the 773ER is supposed to lift 69.8 t, and the 346HGW 74.6 t. The 346 does burn about 800 kg/hr more than the 773ER, but in reality as you would know, airlines seldom go full with passengers/payload, but you would have the extra fuel burn if you had the 346. Fuel is only part of the cost of operating the aircraft.
The 346 has a significant advantage in terms of payload lift out of JNB even with the extra thrust bump on the 773ER, at 30 deg off the same runway the 773ER will only lift about 11 t more than a 343, well behind the 744/346 capability.
Last edited by Zeke; 10th Jun 2008 at 15:28.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: HKG
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zeke,
You are obviously loyal to the bus, fine. Been there, didn't like it. However it is not an "old wive's tale" as I have seen the comparisons on paper, and yes it was a CX ER, not a Boeing "spec" aircraft. So, yes the cost of fuel isn't everything, but the savings add up at around 15T less fuel per ULH sector, every day times 50 aircraft, or more eventually!
You are obviously loyal to the bus, fine. Been there, didn't like it. However it is not an "old wive's tale" as I have seen the comparisons on paper, and yes it was a CX ER, not a Boeing "spec" aircraft. So, yes the cost of fuel isn't everything, but the savings add up at around 15T less fuel per ULH sector, every day times 50 aircraft, or more eventually!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: 'round here
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't we get 2.4 A330's for every B777ER so every dollar we get for a bum on seat vs. what we're paying to buy the aircraft in the first place and service the debt means we're streets ahead with the 'bus.
If we're here to make money, that is. If we're here to look good then dump them all and go back to the Convairs
If we're here to make money, that is. If we're here to look good then dump them all and go back to the Convairs
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 104
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to digress a little. Please would someone tell me the cost index used at the moment on the long haul fleets and whether this has been amended in view of the price of oil? Tks