380?

[cxorcist]

Good Debate

Eyes Only,

I will address the points in your last post, but before I do I would like to talk about freighters. Also, I am sensing that you are not a CX pilot, or even a pilot at all perhaps. If so, my apologies as I assumed you were. That said, the points made are still valid and constructive, for the most part.

First off, I hope we can agree that the A380 will never be a freighter. There are so many reasons it would require a separate post to list them all.

As for the -8F, the CX press release states that it can carry a structural payload of 140T. To my knowledge, this is still the case. The -400ERF can carry a structural payload of 128T. That does not mean it can carry it HKG-ANC, but it can lift it. So please, do not be confused by these numbers.

In the current cargo market ex-HKG, a -400 freighter that is nearly 100% volume loaded usually carries about 100-110T. Assuming the -8F has 16% more volumetric capacity, it would need to carry 116-128T to ANC. So as you can see, a payload limit of 125T is not a huge miss in terms of actual market requirements. That said, it is still a disappointment because the plane was designed to carry 134T to ANC and will now be carrying / burning more fuel in place of those 9T. Not good! The director I spoke with mentioned the increased fuel burn as the primary complaint. It will be interesting to see which airplane burns more fuel HKG-ANC, a MTOW -400F or a MTOW -8F. In theory, the -8F should burn slightly less. Time will tell...

I do think your post before last does show ignorance. If you do the research, you will find that in the winter LAX-HKG and JFK-HKG and HKG-JFK have about the same flight times. This means the air mileage is very similar despite the ground mileage being quite different. So if the -8I is "not on the cards" for JFK, it really is not for LAX year-round either. You have to see through the smoke and mirrors of both the Boeing and Airbus websites.

Since you are an A380 proponent, I think the relevant comparison on the HKG-JFK sector is between the it and the 773ER which serves it now. The flight times are 15 hours plus and the 773ER carries 300ish pax, their bags, and significant cargo. The empty weight is approximately 172T and it commonly carries 44T payload and burns about 125T to and from JFK. Since the A380 would likely carry about 450 pax in a CX configuration, add 50% to all those numbers and see if the A380 can compete. Simple math using empty weights of 172T vs 277T divided by the number of seats looks ugly for the A380. This is to mention nothing of cargo. I very much doubt the A380 can compete, but crunch the numbers and let me know...

If it can compete, you have to factor in several other variables like:
1) CX loves frequency. Not only do business travelers prefer it, it makes the network stronger when multiple flights can be timed for hub connecting flights out of Hong Kong. Three flights to/from JFK would almost certainly support these hub times.
2) CX is always preparing for the next downturn. I think it is hard to argue that the A380 is a good recession airplane. The Qantas guy said it correctly, the problem is all the extra weight requires a full load to offset the costs.
3) CX has for years been saying that NA is going to be served by all 773ER. To date, this has increasingly been the case although the -400 still goes to YVR and SFO. The A343 still serves YVR. These services will over time be phased out and replaced by 773ER as deliveries come.
4) The cost of adding another type at CX would not be well received. The -8 is is the process of being added and the A350 will begin soon. The A380 would be a third project which would be viewed negatively unless absolutely necessary for the health of the airline.
5) Maintaining 4 engines certainly costs more than 2, and don't even get me started on the Trent 900s. What a mess!

"Please advise me what "misinformation" I have been spreading ?"
You stating that the -8I was not on the cards for JFK. I heard it straight from the horses mouth that CX was looking at the -8I for JFK. The same cannot be said for the A380, according to him.

[Eyes only]

First off, I hope we can agree that the A380 will never be a freighter.

It will be at some stage.

CX press release states that it can carry a structural payload of 140T. To my knowledge, this is still the case.

Boeing reduced maximum structural payload from 140 tonnes some time ago, much the same time the MTOW was increased. Boeing will recover some of the payload loss with a yet to be announced MZFW increase. The current specification has maximum structural payload at 133901 kg.

That does not mean it can carry it HKG-ANC, but it can lift it.

The advertised payload capability HKG-ANC was 133990 kg.

Assuming the -8F has 16% more volumetric capacity, it would need to carry 116-128T to ANC.

Try and see if you can replicate the 16% number from Boeing marketing with the way cargo is actually packaged and loaded.

increased fuel burn as the primary complaint

Due to the GEnx missing its design SFC.

If you do the research, you will find that in the winter LAX-HKG and JFK-HKG and HKG-JFK have about the same flight times. This means the air mileage is very similar despite the ground mileage being quite different.

You have successfully reinvented the wheel, look back to my reply 13 on the first page.

"3. Qantas operates daily LAX-MEL with the A380. LAX-MEL no wind is 131 nm shorter than JFK-HKG (only operated direct by the 777-300ER and A340-600), with the enroute winds, LAX-MEL is longer than JFK-HKG in air nautical miles. I do not know where you get this idea that the A380 cannot do the 600 nm shorter LAX-HKG route (compared to LAX-MEL), when on a daily basis Qantas operates LAX-MEL, and Emirates operate SYD-DXB, both of which are longer flights."

So if the -8I is "not on the cards" for JFK, it really is not for LAX year-round either.

They are your words, not mine. The hint being the headwinds from LAX are seasonal, the distance HKG-JFK-HKG is not.

Since you are an A380 proponent

I look to the scientific evidence, I do not automatically dismiss or endorse anything.

Since the A380 would likely carry about 450 pax in a CX configuration, add 50% to all those numbers and see if the A380 can compete.

You are comparing the 4 class configuration with the "new" seats on one type to a 3 class configuration, with the "old' seats. They A380 will not lift anywhere near 50% more raw payload over that distance, but it can generate over 50% more total revenue for 20% lower per seat cost.

The true yield of underfloor cargo on such long sector lengths is low. Cargo aircraft have better cargo yields as they can stop and refuel as many times necessary.

CX loves frequency.

A catch phase championed by an individual, however one must look if the connections actually exist. It is evident from the published timetable that the "waves" or periods for optimum transits do not currently exist to support a high frequency model. Cathay Pacific is a single wave airline at its main hub. Emirates is currently building its third wave into their published timetable. This means currently only once a day passengers get optimum transit times. For example, Hong Kong is geographically located such that it has some of the shortest tracks from Europe to the East Coast of Australia, however a number of airlines have shorter total journey times despite having to operate longer routes.

Not only do business travelers prefer it, it makes the network stronger when multiple flights can be timed for hub connecting flights out of Hong Kong.

Business owners prefer their staff to have a full days work available either after or before the flight. However that place of work generally is not Hong Kong.

I think it is hard to argue that the A380 is a good recession airplane.

I have previously outlined how Singapore Airlines managed to save over 200 tonnes per week of fuel on a single route during the GFC using the A380 in lieu of 777-300ER frequencies.

The -8 is is the process of being added and the A350 will begin soon. The A380 would be a third project which would be viewed negatively unless absolutely necessary for the health of the airline.

Agreed, the first actual reason for not adding the A380 today.

don't even get me started on the Trent 900s. What a mess!

Everyone who has been involved with the industry for some time knows that new aircraft and engines go through stages where problems will arise from time to time. Normally airframe related problems show up rather quickly, and engine related issues later. As they mature, these issues will become a blur.

I heard it straight from the horses mouth that CX was looking at the -8I for JFK. The same cannot be said for the A380, according to him.

Given the side of yellow line you seem to prefer, I have a fair idea who has been passing you the "information". The "information" relayed to you may or may not be representative of the work being done in the departments that actually do the analysis and planning. The people in those sort of positions will rarely get involved in micromanaging departments.

[BusyB]

Eyes Only,

I understood from a Qantas pilot on this or another thread that the 380 couldn't take any cargo SYD-LAX and sometimes couldn't take all the pax baggage.

[cxorcist]

Eyes Only,

In the interest of not writing in circles, I will highlight the three main problems with the A380 and leave it for you to refute.

1) The A380 is heavy. 277T Base Operating Weight (BOW) divided by any number of realistic seating configurations is not competitive with other large aircraft being marketed today. Use the floor space divided by BOW for a better metric if you wish.

2) Since it is heavy, it is either range or payload restricted. I believe you underestimate the value of belly freight on ULH routes. CX is especially adept at putting high yield, express cargo in passenger bellies. A recent update indicated that 50% of our total cargo revenue is carried in passenger bellies. That is significant when you consider that we have a freighter fleet comprised of 23 -400Fs. Significant cargo restrictions on ULH routes because the A380 cannot carry pax, their bags, and cargo will not fly at CX.

3) The A380 is NOT a good recession airplane. Yes, I did twice read your reference to Singapore A380s in lieu of 773ERs on the CDG route. That is all well and good, but what happens if during the next downturn there is not enough traffic to fill the 380s on the property. They either fly and lose money OR they sit on the ground and lose money. CX is rather picky about always making money by being well positioned for the next downturn - unlike Emirates, Singapore, and some of the other state-sponsored A380 customers. Other airplanes such as the 77/87, A33/50, and even the -8I have less downside risk than the A380.

Have the last word, but try not to revert to the same talking points you have been parroting this whole time.

Regards,

CXorcist

PS - I would rather have GEnx that misses its SFC than a Trent 900 that beats it and then proceeds to put holes in the wings...

[Yonosoy Marinero]

Honestly guys...




Who cares about which aircraft CX will make me fly 105 hours a month with no overtime, no housing allowance, 4 G days a month, on a 1976 salary scale while I wait another 20 years for my command...

Even if they bought an aircraft that flies anything anywhere for free, they'd still claim that the cost of the electricity to vacuum the carpets is too volatile to risk giving the pilots a raise.

[SMOC]

Don't know where to find the article I read again, but Airbus has said an A380 built in a PAX configuration can NEVER be converted to a Freighter, the A380F was/is totally separate. So if considering re-sale as a freighter down the line forget it. It's not well known, I saw an interview where SIA think they'll convert their A380s to freighters in the future, it's not going to happen.

If I remember correctly the upper deck floor height is different and there are problems fitting the cargo doors to a pax A/C.

One of CXs problems with the A380 has always been the lack of VOLUME in the cargo hold once it's full of all the pax bags and the crew rest module.

Next time your flying any of the CX A/C on a long haul trip which has a full load of punters, ask the load control guy how many LD3s you have full of bags vs the space available for cargo.

If Airbus build a -900 then I think you'll see CX make a purchase.

Meanwhile I hope the -8I gets ordered as a stop gap but I doubt it.

[Eyes only]

cxorcist,

Your last post is full of emotion, I prefer to deal with facts.

The "spec" figures for the ratio you mentioned

777-300ER
Spec OEW = 175542 kg
Floor area = 330.4 m^2
OEW/area = 531 kg/m^2

A380-800
Spec OEW = 278800 kg
Floor area = 552.5 m^2
OEW/area = 504 kg/m^2

777-300ER has a 5% higher OEW/area ratio on spec weights, the A380 is providing 67% more floor area, however it is not 67% heavier.

The vast majority of the underfloor cargo on passenger aircraft is uplifted on regional/medium haul routes on 777s and A330s where it may cost as little as 30-40 kg extra fuel per tonne. These are typically routes that have multiple passenger services with no or an infrequent freighter service.

Reading between the lines, you would be a polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride -400 bellwether, and even a -400F/ERF aerialist. I will give you the benefit of doubt that you have actually taken an interest in the freighter load factors on from North America to Hong Kong. If a holy grail of high value freight was available originating in North America, the freighters would be filled first, like they are ex-Hong Kong. Cathay Pacific could not even secure the mail contract to Hong Kong.

Regarding the GEnx, it is also a relatively high risk engine, it is the first time GE has done a counter-rotating spool design on such a large engine. As you not doubt aware the Trent 800 (777) and the Trent 900 (A380) are very similar engine designs, sharing the same number of compressors and turbine stages and general engine layout. The engine efficiency improvements on the Trent 900 were largely obtained by utilising a counter-rotating spool. It was one of the rear bearings that is different from the Trent 800 due to the new design feature which has been postulated (not to pre-empt the ATSB investigation) to have cause the uncontained failure.

The GEnx has already had a number of changes to fix problems found in testing, this is no cause for alarm, it is part and parcel of product development. No doubt GE will also learn a lot more after their engines have been used on ULH routes for a period of time.

Rolls Royce has 5 decades of experience with the design, support, and maintenance of counter-rotating engines. They designed the Pegasus with counter-rotating spools to reduce the gyroscopic effects on the Harrier when it hovered. GE does not have that experience to fall back on, they are still learning to walk with the new technology, it will be interesting to see how the GEnx performs in the real world.

[airplaneridesrfun]

Pilot Jobs, Aviation Jobs, Aviation Employment, Career Fairs, Job Fairs

[Eyes only]

SMOC,

The A380 passenger aircraft will never be converted to an A380F, just like a 747-400 will never be converted to a 747-400F.

The A380P2F, like the 747-400BCF are converted passenger freighters. That sort of aircraft is not a true general freighter, it is however a volumetrically efficient package freighter.

Fedex has expressed interest in the A380P2F.

[cxorcist]

Eyes Only,

Excuse the reply. I realize I said I would let you have the last word, but your last post is hard to ignore. No emotion here, just a practical view of the economics which seem to be elusive for you scientific types.

With regard to the spec figures, do you realize you have made my point for me? Why would CX opt for a 5% improvement in floor area per tonne when you consider the all downsides - which are the inability to carry cargo ULH, the requirement to load a 450+ seater near full in order to make money on all but the highest yielding routes, the requirement to establish another aircraft type, the inability to fly into many of CX's regional Asian ports, etc??? You have not truly addressed the ULH cargo issue other than to write that it is not very important financially. Similarly, the A380 recession-proofing issue remains unaddressed other than to cite the Singapore/CDG example.

You need to understand that CX looks at maximizing return on investment in all market conditions before purchasing aircraft. I do not think it bodes well for the A380 when it cannot compete well numerically with an aircraft two-thirds its size that was introduced 3 years before it.

The only way CX will ever order the A380 is as a niche aircraft for slot restricted Euro ports and/or if it is drastically improved by the -900 model and/or if Euro regulators lean hard enough with their eco-taxes or other socialist, subversion methods. Face the facts, the airplane is morbidly obese. Engineers (like yourself?) over promised and under-delivered (OPUD) wrt to weight. 234 orders is hardly a resounding affirmation when you consider that the aircraft has no true market competition in its size category.

Despite your attempt to disparage with your early "plastic" reference, I do appreciate the engine history review. I did not know most of what you wrote. However, newer 777s are powered by GE90s, not Trent 800s. I would postulate that the GE90 and Boeing's magnificent raked-tip, wing design are what make the 777 such a difficult aircraft to compete against today.

With regard to RR/Trent and the counter-rotating technology, I would not be proud of the lessons from the Harrier. Those were learned through blood - some of it my colleagues' who fearlessly flew that disastrous design. Along those lines, I would say RR/Trent have a reputation for pushing the envelope too far. I seem to recall the A330 having significant engine issues in addition to those on the A380. Perhaps you can produce examples, but I do not recall GE, PW, or even CFM having similar teething issues in recent years. Also, the Engine Alliance (GE/PW) GP7200 is appearing to be a better engine for the A380 at this stage of the game.

I know you pocket-protector types like to look down your noses at pilots, but many of us are not the "Bakelite" idiots you like to think of us as. When the typhoon flags start flying, the thunderstorms booming, or the piece of crap EADS plastic heap you designed starts tearing itself apart or diving at the ocean, it is going to take a lot more than
"a polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride aerialist" to get everyone on the ground in one piece.

Now you can have the last word...

Cheers,

CXorcist

PS - The -400BCF is not a volumetrically efficient freighter, just ask CX. They do not like them and are trying to pawn off as many as possible as I write. Also, Fred Smith and FedEx will be interested in anything they think they can get their hands on cheaply. You should be worried that they are already eying the A380 for a P2F conversion. Notice their current fleet of retrofitted MD-10/11s, B757s, and B727s. Looking to join those ranks with the A380???

[SMOC]

Eyes only,



Do you work in aviation?

There will be no A380P2F.

[Eyes only]

Why would CX opt for a 5% improvement in floor area

Increased yield. The ticket price would be the same on a 777, 747 or A380, however the cost per seat on the A380 is around 20% lower than the 777-300ER (which is also lower than the 747-400).

the inability to carry cargo ULH

That is an assertion you have claimed many times without any factual support.

the requirement to load a 450+ seater near full in order to make money on all but the highest yielding routes

More assertions without any factual support. A380s are now being operated on secondary routes and markets, e.g. DXB-MAN, BKK-HKG.

the requirement to establish another aircraft type

I do not disagree with that at all, however a decision needs to be made on -400 replacement.

the inability to fly into many of CX's regional Asian ports

Which ports would they be ? Anywhere a -400 goes should be able to handle an A380. The A380 has operated out of a lot of the Cathay Pacific regional ports already.

You have not truly addressed the ULH cargo issue other than to write that it is not very important financially

I do not understand the "issue" you claim exists. The aircraft does have cargo volume and spare payload capacity to carry cargo, it is also available in two combi configurations (which no airlines has ordered). The 777-300ER has essentially the capacity of a 747 classic combi, they were never that popular as the cost of carrying freight on a passenger aircraft (where non-stop sectors are required) is not as profitable as a dedicated freighter where stops can be made to maximise payload.

For the A380 to be completely full underfloor with passenger baggage would require 3-4 suitcases to be checked in for each passenger.

Similarly, the A380 recession-proofing issue remains unaddressed other than to cite the Singapore/CDG example.

Which is a factual account. Nothing you have presented would trigger an airline to ground their most efficient aircraft in the lower market cycles. One would not schedule an A380 on routes that would not benefit from its capacity, likewise, one would not do the same for a 777-300ER or 747-400.

I do not think it bodes well for the A380 when it cannot compete well numerically with an aircraft two-thirds its size that was introduced 3 years before it.

Again you have provided no evidence to support such a statement, the 777-300ER has around 20% higher costs per seat.

The only way CX will ever order the A380 is as a niche aircraft for slot restricted Euro ports and/or if it is drastically improved by the -900 model and/or if Euro regulators lean hard enough with their eco-taxes or other socialist, subversion methods.

That is your personal view, I assume you also do not realise that Hong Kong has already become a slot restricted airport for several hours a day. While you are predicting the future with such certainty, could you advise me the correct numbers to win the next two mark 6 results so I can retire.

234 orders is hardly a resounding affirmation when you consider that the aircraft has no true market competition in its size category.

A list price of over USD$300 million, with 234 sales I guess that would still be less than your well managed provident fund. The A380 was never going to sell in the numbers of a 737, neither was the 747.

However, newer 777s are powered by GE90s, not Trent 800s. I would postulate that the GE90 and Boeing's magnificent raked-tip, wing design are what make the 777 such a difficult aircraft to compete against today.

The Trent 800 and GE90 are available on 777-200/200ER/300 airframes. The 777-300ER/777-200LR are only available with GE90-115s as GE paid Boeing several hundred million dollars for an exclusivity deal. Rolls Royce did have an engine that could power them, the Trent 8104, they ran that engine producing over 110,000 lb of thrust. They also had the Trent 8115 which has a slightly higher thrust rating again.

The raked wing tip is an afterthought, it is not the first time Boeing used it (767-400). The design feature I like the most on the 777-300ER is the landing gear.

Perhaps you can produce examples, but I do not recall GE, PW, or even CFM having similar teething issues in recent years.

Too many examples from every manufacturer to list, a comprehensive list can be obtained by looking at the Airworthiness Directives from the FAA and EASA. I doubt you would be aware of the history of the ADs applicable to the engines you operate, let alone other engines types not operated by Cathay.

Also, the Engine Alliance (GE/PW) GP7200 is appearing to be a better engine for the A380 at this stage of the game.

The Trent 900s and GP7200s have a different in-service histories, due to the different routes structures being flown, a realistic comparison cannot be made.

When the typhoon flags start flying, the thunderstorms booming, or the piece of crap EADS plastic heap you designed starts tearing itself apart or diving at the ocean, it is going to take a lot more than "a polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride aerialist" to get everyone on the ground in one piece.

Bellwether seems more apt. Does your maid to starch or use scented fabric softener on your flying gloves to give better tactile feel when turning the autopilot on ?

The -400BCF is not a volumetrically efficient freighter, just ask CX.

The Cathay Pacific average cargo density results in the BCF reaching a floor loading or ZFW/MLW first. Package carriers can take advantage of volumetrically efficient freighters as they have lower cargo densities, they are also the most profitable air cargo carriers in the world.

You should be worried that they are already eying the A380 for a P2F conversion.

Not at all, the A380 was designed with a P2F conversion in mind, much like the 747-8I is. David Sutton (FedEx MD for aircraft acquisitions and sales) is actually counting on airlines replacing their A380-800s with A380-900s starting around 2020. He said they would be looking for A380P2F aircraft around the 2020 timeframe, they were looking for 150-200 airframes.

He said a converted -800 would be "a less capable aircraft" than the new-build A380-800F as it has lower operating weights, but would be "ideal for US domestic or regional missions, as well as some international flying".