Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

A340-600

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 22nd July 2009 | 14:04
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: South
A340-600

The CX website has no mention of any A340-600s. Yet there are pictures on google with CX operating A340-600s.

What has happened to them!
skyhighbird is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2009 | 14:14
  #2 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Dec 1998
Posts: 3,038
Likes: 52
From: .
Cool

They have been returned from whence they came.
spannersatcx is offline  
Reply
Old 22nd July 2009 | 14:44
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
From: South
I thought as much.

So I did a quick search on google thinking it would be a leading news title in an aviation magazine but nada.

Anyone know why they were returned? how many etc..
skyhighbird is offline  
Reply
Old 23rd July 2009 | 03:21
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
From: SE Asia
was not a big deal at all ... cx had 3, I think, and the lease has not been renewed by cx so they went back to the leasing company (ILFC?) who actually owns them. It seems they have been sitting around CLK in Hainan Airlines colours for a long time, coz Hainan didn't want to take delivery amidst the downturn and so, once a month on each scheduled delivery day they found one or two new technical item that needs to be fixed before they can take them.
freightdog188 is offline  
Reply
Old 23rd July 2009 | 05:33
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 1,040
Likes: 2
From: 3.5 from TD
They are now flying, I did see one of them in Pudong a while back.

CH-Aviation - Airline News, Fleet Lists & More
Sqwak7700 is offline  
Reply
Old 31st July 2009 | 07:48
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 293
Likes: 0
From: hong kong
just curious... why did Cathay not want them any more ????
is there a problem with the 600 or are they some sort of lepers in the Airbus family ???
mr Q is offline  
Reply
Old 31st July 2009 | 07:58
  #7 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 18
From: By the sea
On a HKG-JFK sector it burnt 10 tons more fuel and carried 10 tons less load than the 300er trippler, hence exit stage left. Sad, had a nice bunk.
pill is offline  
Reply
Old 31st July 2009 | 14:58
  #8 (permalink)  
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 502
Likes: 3
From: everywhere
Sad, had a nice bunk.
So does the 777
flyhardmo is offline  
Reply
Old 1st August 2009 | 02:49
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 2
From: Australia
I forget the actual figures but 3 600's used up something like 30% of the whole fleet maintenance budget. They were early build 600's and basically a pain in the ass. CX had huge problems maintaining them. Not to mention the lack of payload v the ER.

I turned out that only 3 600's in the fleet wasn't financially viable long term.

Bye bye 600's.................................thank goodness
nitpicker330 is offline  
Reply
Old 1st August 2009 | 06:17
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Honkers
Was it the same muppet who was responsible for the 340-600 who was given a go on the fuel hedging.
badairsucker is offline  
Reply
Old 1st August 2009 | 11:22
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 2
From: Australia
probably, and the same muppit that designed the new Olympic business class. Oh ahang on...............they sacked her didn't they!!
nitpicker330 is offline  
Reply
Old 2nd August 2009 | 03:04
  #12 (permalink)  
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 192
Likes: 18
From: By the sea
Not sacked, she was transfered to cargo, something about leaising with other carriers over pricing, then onto the fuel hedging team. I hear she's going to replace Nic running flight ops soon.

Last edited by pill; 3rd August 2009 at 00:04.
pill is offline  
Reply
Old 2nd August 2009 | 22:19
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
From: 'round here
Was a nice machine to fly and had a bunk you could stand up in, no standing in the stairwell to put your shirt on. Plus it had 4 engines for going over the pole. Very much doubt it sucked up 30% of the airbus fleet operating budget as they were proven reliable in the latter stages of us having them.
stillalbatross is offline  
Reply
Old 19th October 2009 | 20:44
  #14 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 1,953
Likes: 172
From: with the ex-CX pond scum (a zoologist was once head of Flight Ops)
... and the takeoff out of Johannesburg was a lot less nail-biting than that of the A340-300.
Captain Dart is offline  
Reply
Old 20th October 2009 | 14:19
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: The Fragrant Harbour
You have to give it some respect, it was the nicest of the buses to fly, it landed just as nicely as the -300er, in fact my stike rate was far higher on the -600, it was the first aircraft to be able to do NYC direct year round, yes it burnt more fuel than the ER on the trip but it didnt have to off load baggage and pax come a hot day in NYC or YYZ. The worst loss is that it was the best aircraft out of them all for JNB, year round it could lift more than a 744 not mater what the OAT. Having done Joburgs in both -600 and the ER i have to say the ER takes less ground to get airborn albiet with significantly reduced payload but if i were to lose one at V1 i would want to be in the -600 any day.
flyingkiwi is offline  
Reply
Old 20th October 2009 | 14:44
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,777
Likes: 0
From: uae
Most pilots I know that have flown the 345 just loved it,who cars about gas burn, I flew fighters and never cared about the amount of fuel burned
fatbus is offline  
Reply
Old 30th October 2009 | 18:19
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
From: Infinity and Beyond
Says the man from the UAE who happen to be sitting on a vast oil reserve!! The rest of the world is a little more concerned about the cost of fuel and conserving it's usage to try and maximise operating profits......oh and to protect the environment of course!
AEUENG is offline  
Reply
Old 5th November 2009 | 10:10
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
From: 'round here
Sad, had a nice bunk.

So does the 777
If you are 4 ft tall.....................
stillalbatross is offline  
Reply
Old 5th November 2009 | 10:25
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 1999
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
From: The Fragrant Harbour
agree,. prefer the -600 bunk, shame about the ladder though
flyingkiwi is offline  
Reply
Old 5th November 2009 | 10:56
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,167
Likes: 2
From: Australia
If you are 4 ft tall.....................
so you sleep or watch tv standing up do you?

the 777 is the best a/c in the air by far...................including the crew rest facilities.............
nitpicker330 is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.