380?

[Fly747]

CEO says Cathay mulls A380 or 747-8 orders
By:
Geoffrey Thomas

Cathay Pacific Airways CEO Tony Tyler told ATW in Perth that the carrier is still keeping the door open on possible A380 or 747-8 orders, while urging Boeing to improve its "fantastic" 777.

"The 777-300ER is a fantastic aircraft but it’s going to need to improve to compete with the A350-1000," he said. "Sure, the A350-1000 is not a Hong Kong–New York aircraft but it certainly is a Hong Kong–Europe aircraft. And so if they are going to sell more 777s to us they will have to improve it."

Tyler also said Boeing needs to make the 777 more efficient with more seat rows and reduced weight. "But I know they don’t intend to abandon that part of the market. They have a firm grip on it and intend to defend it."

On the A380 and 747-8, Tyler said there will come a time when "Cathay will need a bigger aircraft" for capacity-restrained airports such as Heathrow. But it has to fly from "West Coast US to Hong Kong, nonstop all-weather, with a full payload," challenged Tyler, who said these are "bread and butter" routes for CX.

Tyler noted CX would not be ordering a token number of super jumbos. "You have to order a sensible number to get the best deals and get the right economy of scale," he said, without putting a timetable on any potential order but hinted it would be a few years yet. The carrier has ordered 10 747-8Fs and will begin taking delivery in 2011.

[hawkeye]

There are 10 further options on the 747-8 which could be converted to pax config. 747-8 will carry a full load from LAX to HKG with diversion fuel for Bangkok. A380 not close.

[Eyes only]

hawkeye,

Qantas and Emirates for some time now are operating A380s on sectors which are longer than LAX-HKG, and they doing do so very comfortably with the "A" model.

LAX-MEL has a sector length about 10% longer than LAX-HKG with similar sorts of total average winds that Cathay could expect during winter. Previously Qantas operated this sector with a 744ER (only airline with the 400ER passenger aircraft) with a much reduced seating configuration just to make it.

EK are now operating the A380 on routes they previously operated the 777-300ER, e.g. their daily EK412 (DXB-SYD-AKL-SYD-DXB). Their president has said the A380 is burning 20% less fuel per seat than their 777-300ERs. That is quite a feat when you compare their seating on the 777-300ERs is about 20 seats (2 rows of economy) shy of what Cathay put on the 744.

Cathay would not gain much capacity at all if they put a Premium Economy class into the 747-8I (4 class aircraft), however using a more generous seat pitch and width on the A380 would result in about 70-80 additional seats with the quietest cabin, and excellent IFE. Singapore airlines on their regional services have been having consistently high loads factors on the A380, while load factors have dropped on their competitors. The A380 flights I have been on have been 100% full.

I do not think many of the common detractors for the A380 are holding much water these days given the aircraft now has 3 years of operational experience with 4 airlines. If Cathay was to get the 747-8I it would still be the "A" model, if they went for the A380 it would be the more mature "C" model that start being delivered to airlines onwards from 2012.

The A380 would also have crewing efficiencies, with A350 crews able to fly the A380, the same efficiencies would not be available on the 747-8F/747-8I.

Media reports of the only two airlines that purchased the 747-8I indicated that it was allegedly as part of a compensation settlement with Boeing. Lufthansa it was due to the money they lost when Boeing decided to close down their inflight broadband service (Connexion by Boeing) a short time after they have spent US$500,000 per aircraft to install the hardware and Korean due to their ongoing 787 and 747-8F delays.

I do not think Cathay would operate a new large aircraft on any route exclusively, I think they would do so with a combination of frames, e.g. a mix of 777-300ER and 747-8I or 777-300ER and A380 frequencies to LHR would be more likely than all frequencies with one type, that would prove the best mix for passenger and cargo capacity increase while still giving operational flexibility.

I do not think Mr Tyler has expressed any view that is different to what the previous CEO had said a few years earlier, I think they are still receptive to considering both airframes, but that could translate into no order for either as well.

All of the above is my personal view, Mr Tyler speaks for the company.

[Ex Cathedra]

In an expansion mindset, the A380 would certainly be a better fit as the 748 would only fit a handful seats more than the current jumbo, especially if they decide to go for premium eco and to drop the coffin class.

Not to mention that as competitors are receiving theirs, it won't be long before they all start sending herds of 'em to HK, and since it's pretty popular with the punters, our dearly beloved premium pax won't be long in asking why they've just spent a ton of money to fly in a 40 years old jumbo while they could've gotten an A380 for the same price with BA, AF, LH, QF, SQ, KE, even EK...

On the downside, it would be harder to send it on regional flights the way the 744s are used today. I doubt MNL is in any way ready to handle one of these, much less DPS...
And the way EK is ordering them like they're running out of fashion, it might be tough to get early slots, especially if they don't sort out the production rate issue.

[BalusKaptan]

Eyes Only, I don't understand you comment regarding the crewing efficencies. Crew able to operate A350 and A380 is no more/less efficent than 747-8F crews operating 747-8I. While the 744F remains in the fleet, at least another 15 - 20 years (having recently taken delivery of 6 new ERF) this would be even more efficent.

[Eyes only]

Kaptan Balus,

The 744/744F/748F pilots are not able to fly the 777 at the same time.

FARNBOROUGH: The A350 flightdeck - pilots at home in the future

The A350 flightdeck has evolved from the A380's, but an A330 pilot would feel totally at home in it. Rather than introducing radical new ideas, the manufacturer has worked on improving the accessibility of the unprecedented amount of information available to the crews, the ease of use of all the avionics and systems, and the clarity and intuitiveness of displays so as to maximise crew situational awareness.

The way flight and systems information is presented to the crew is fundamentally the same as it is in an A330/A340 series aircraft, because although Airbus wants to advance, it also wants to make cross-crew-qualification (CCQ) with other types in its stable easy and cheap.

[akerosid]

Bottom line: the 747-8 is the end of the 747 line. The A380-800 is the beginning of the A380 line. While you might have commonality with the 748F, there's no growth in the 747; once the 747-8 ceases production, that's it.

If you're going to make a major investment in a large pax aircraft (and it will be, if you're going to have a significant fleet), invest in something which will carry the airline at least 10-15 years into the future. Airbus will eventually develop a higher gross weight model for longer range, not to mention a stretched -900 model. On top of that, there is bound to be significant commonality between the A350 and A380.

For the last 30 years, the 747 has served CX superbly in various guises, just as many acft before it - the Electra, CV880, 707 and Tristar - have done; I have a huge admiration for the 747 and it will be a sad day when the last one rolls off the line, but time marches on CX needs the best bang for its buck.

That's the A380.

[cxorcist]

Without having all the facts on the A380 since they seem not to be published anywhere, my understanding is that there are a few problems with it as it pertains to Cathay Pacific.

1) The seat & tonne costs per km, despite being a larger aircraft, are higher than those of the 748I (Boeing website). Whether this is true or not, the trip costs are without question higher on a much heavier airplane.

2) The A380 cargo space is limited relative to the number of seats on the aircraft. Therefore, the highly lucrative revenue downstairs is limited by all the passenger bags. CX makes boatloads of cash on belly cargo. The 748I has 26% more belly cargo capacity than the 744 (Boeing website) with only a 12.2% increase in passenger seats.

3) For Trans-Pacific flights (SYD-LAX), my understanding is that the 380 cannot carry much additional revenue when compared to the 744ER. This, I'm told, is primarily due to the massive build-up of mandatory fuel resulting from so few en-route alternates being available. I am not sure if this would be the case in the North Pacific, but I don't imagine that PASY or PACD can handle the A380.

4) The 748F will be established at CX. Training, logistics, maintenance, etc for the 748I would mostly be within the existing infrastructure. The addition of the A380 would be another type to bring into the company. With the A350 coming in 2016+, I think bringing two new types on board would be viewed as a negative economically and operationally.

5) The A380 is not a good recession airplane because it is so large. CX prefers operational flexibility and route frequency, which is why they love the 773ER so much. The 748I would have more flexibility than the A380 regionally and on ULH routes (HKG-JFK).

6) All indications are that passengers love the A380 and buy tickets accordingly. While I am sure this is true, I am not sure the same would not be the case for the 748I. My understanding is that it will incorporate many of the same interior features as the passenger friendly 787 (minus the cabin's higher humidity & lower altitude of course). Not that it matters anyways, CX will put horrible seats in whatever they buy.

7) CX has not had the best experience with Airbus. I think there is a distrust there that stems from the early mechanical problems with the 330 and the 346 that never really lived up to the claims wrt long-haul performance. The Boeing aircraft, by contrast, tend to meet or exceed expectations (like with the 744ERFs and 777ERs). The A350 order was, IMO, just a statement by CX that they have no intentions of going to an all Boeing fleet. I think the company is viewing the A350 as a replacement aircraft for the A330s, A340s, and 772s. However, they have no desire to be tethered to one company and most definitely not an American one at that.

For these reasons, I simply cannot see CX ordering the A380. I am happy to be wrong and corrected on any of the above. Perhaps a limited order of A380s for the European markets makes sense, but the risks associated with the A380 seem greater than the rewards when compared to the 748I.

[flyingkiwi]

Not sure i see your point, the risks of the 380 have been borne out, it has been in service for 3 years, and im pretty sure CX have lost as much confidence in Boeing in recient times, when were the 74-8 meant to arrive.

I figure an aircraft that has orders from only 2 airliners cant be that good even on paper otherwise why havnt other airlines jumped on it. Yet the 380 is still getting fresh orders.

[Eyes only]

cxorcist,

1) The Boeing website numbers assume the 747-8I has 467 passengers onboard and assumes the A380 is 10t heavier than it is. 747-8I website numbers assume that airlines have a first class with a 152 cm seat pitch, and 96 cm seat pitch in business (Cathay has a 205 cm bed in first, and a 198 cm bed in business, the actual pitch is even higher). The seat width Boeing uses in first is 53 cm, and 50 cm in business, Cathay provides 91 cm in first, and 81 cm in business. In real airline configurations the number is approximately 80% of the capacity Boeing is claiming (as a comparison Boeing claim the 777-300ER is a 370 seat 3 class aircraft whilst Cathay has 301 seats, again around 80%). In comparison the A380 is touted as a 525 seat aircraft, Lufthansa has 526 seats, Air France 538, Singapore 471, Emirates 489, and Qantas 450 (they have a 4 class configuration).

2) The A380 cargo space compared to a 777-300ER is not as good (38 vs 44 LD3s), but it is better than a 744 (38 vs 32 LD3s). FYI the 333 and 772 have the same LD3 capacity as the 744. It is more expensive to lift freight underfloor on a passenger aircraft than it is to put in on a dedicated freighter, the freight you want underfloor on passenger aircraft is high yield freight, not general freight.

3) Qantas is not having any range/load difficulties with the A380. The aircraft is often dispatched 20t below MTOW with full a payload even on LAX-MEL. Qantas has had a medical diversion into Fiji, and severe weather in SYD also caused a tech stop in Noumea. The 744ER that Qantas operates only has a capacity of 26 LD3 as the space of 6 LD3s is taken up with additional fuel tanks.

4) The 747-8 does not have a lot of commonality with the 744/F outside of the cockpit, parts wise is it upwards of 85% different.

5) SQ/QF/EK A380s during the recent GFC had load factors were on average 5 points higher than their other long haul aircraft. It allowed SQ to consolidate the number of services whilst still retaining capacity, they also charged passengers a premium to travel on the A380.

6) The cabin altitude (around 6000 ft) in the A330/A340/A380 is already what Boeing is planning to bring in on the 787. It is nothing new. The upper deck and forward section of the 747 are difficult to adapt seats for that were designed for cabins with parallel walls like the 777.

7) Cathay is the largest A330 operator in the world, and operates the most Airbus types either directly or through its subsidiaries. The A340-600 did the job it was intended for, it opened up the direct HKG-JFK route thereby linking up the three main financial centres with non-stop flights. All the carriers that are operating the A380 have stated that their aircraft are exceeding the performance guarantees.

[cxorcist]

Eyes only,

First off, it is clear that you are an A380 fan and that I favor the 748. It sounds as if you know your numbers, but the ones you provided did not directly address the comparison between the A380 and 748I.

1) With regard to fuel burn, I learned subsequent to my post that Lufthansa considers the seat / km cost to be 3% higher on the 748I with similar cabin arrangements. The burn was something like 3.4 liters per 100km on the 748I compared to the A380's 3.3 liters. I would say that is a negligible advantage unless you are convinced you can run the A380 at capacity. The trip cost, on the other hand, is most assuredly higher on the A380. This is definitely a consideration and often the first metric airlines look at before purchasing an aircraft. Realistically, load factors run somewhere around 80%. Assuming this to be the case, the A380's advantage evaporates.

2) With regard to belly cargo, the comparison is between the A380 and the 748I, not the 744. Even if the two airplanes have the same cargo volume (I think the 748I may have the A380 beat by 2 LD3s), there should be more room to carry cargo on the 748 due to fewer passenger bags. Regardless of whether it is express freight or not, more cargo volume equals more revenue potential.

3) My Qantas example was just something I heard, not fact. However, I will say that paying to lift mandatory fuel is never a good thing in that it costs money without making any. I am not sure how much build-up is required on QF transpacs, but it seems likely that it occurs frequently and would for CX on the NoPac routes as well. To this end, I do not think the A380 will be doing HKG-JFK, but the 748I very well could.

4) I never said the 748 had commonality with the 744F, although I am sure that it does have some. My point was that the 748F will already be set up at CX by the time any 748Is would potentially arrive. Therefore, the infrastructure would already be in place with only the 748F / 748I differences to add.

5) Over time, I am sure the novelty of the A380 will wear off. However, I do not doubt that it exists now. I think that the relative advantage which it has now over the 747 and 777 service it competes with will be diminished by the 787 and 748I interiors. Also, consolidating flights is, in general, not something CX seeks to do. They like to add frequency so as to better serve business travelers. This makes it easier to pull capacity during downturns which is something I would be very concerned about with the A380 and its trip costs.

6) You are correct about the cabin pressure, but the humidity will be exclusive to the 787 and, presumably, the 350.

7) I am not going to argue about the track record of Airbus vs Boeing aircraft. It would be a complete waste of time as we both know who builds better machines.

[Eyes only]

cxorcist,

I am glad you have declared your bias for the 747-8I, hence people can understand why you have decided to post misinformation.

1. Lufthansa has within the last 12 months increased the number of seats they are planning to deploy on the 747-8I, less premium and more economy. Lufthansa is looking at installing approximately 90-95% of the theoretical 467 seats Boeing says a 747-8I can have, Cathay typically sits at around the 80% mark. The 747-8I and A380 were compared also by Emirates/Singapore/Qantas, and it was considered it did not have any economic advantage over the 747-8I with their seats installed. The Lufthansa numbers you presented also agree with this.

2. The A380 has two more LD3 positions than the 747-8I, not the other way around. The A380 has 50% more floor space than a 744, that is also real revenue potential. The A380 in size is an A333 ontop of the 744 main deck. The 747-8I has a 4 m plug in front of the wing and a 1.5 m plug aft of the wing, that translates to 6 EY rows.

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.

4. When freighters have interiors, galleys, toilets, and IFE, then they will be some commonality between them. At the moment Cathay is not setup at all for a new large passenger aircraft, it will require investment either way. If Cathay went for the 747-8I, we would have to buy a lot more spares as very few of them have been ordered, we could not rely on other airline stores. A380 spares are already in place at HKG, SYD, SIN, BKK, LHR, FRA, CDG, DXB, LAX, and JFK.

5. A380 total trip costs are lower than a 744, and if you believe what Emirates say, it is 20% better on a per seat basis than a 777-300ER, and Singapore says 20% better than their 744s. The A380 also has a 4000 ft higher initial cruising altitude than the 744/747-8, meaning they will fly above most of the other 747/777 traffic being able to stay at it optimum level, it would open up more enroute slots to Europe for Cathay.

6. Higher cabin humidity is available as an option from other manufacturers, for example Air Mauritius has humidifiers installed on their A340s. The majority of the cabin humidity that will exist on the 787 will come from the passengers, current aircraft remove this. The 787 does not carry water to humidity the cabin, and the outside air is dry.

7. I do not think you have ever flown an Airbus, so I do not think you can make any objective comment. However lots of us have been deafened by the 747 cockpit noise levels, myself included.

[Bograt]

Does anyone posting here really think they'll change someone else's opinion?

[parabellum]

Does anyone posting here really think they'll change someone else's opinion?

Not if they don't accept that the A380 is fine for a very limited niche market. It was intended as a B747 replacement with similar numbers, circa.1500, that will never happen, the B777 and A330/340 are already out there doing that job. Just over 200 firm orders at the moment. 500, (at least), to break even?

A two thirds full A380, with undoubted passenger appeal, is not economically viable and on average that is about the best any operator can hope for whilst the B777, A330 & 340 and the B747-400 and 747-800 are out there in competition.

[BalusKaptan]

Eyes Only
You post read as though you were saying the A350/380 were a common endorsement and not the B744/8. I don't advocate the B777 as common with the B744/8 just as the A330 is not with the A350/380.
Bottom line, I don't think the commonality, or lack of, will be of overiding significance if one type over the other has better economics of operation. I personally see CX eventually purchasing both types as the route structure (Slot constrained airports etc) and type of CX operation phylosophy(high frequency with cargo belly space) being the driving factor. Even with a minimal order of A380s and -8Is they would both be part of a sizeable fleet due to the A350s and 744Fs/-8Fs.
As for noise levels, until recently I would agree with you hands down...but...ever been in an ERF, could hardly believe it was a Boeing and I hear the -8F/I is quieter. I look foreward to the chance for a trip on one (not easy as a frieghter) to see (hear) for myself.
I believe Air China also ordered 20 -8Is last August. It seems to have been kept very quiet but that should start the rumour mill going what with the Cx tie-up.

[prairiedriver]

I am leaning in the favor of cxorcist today. A bit of a blow for the bus fans a la Qantas.

[cxorcist]

Put Yank engines (GP7200) on the A380 and it will probably continue to fly just fine, but that still does not make it an economical aircraft for CX and certainly not for CX flying across the Pacific.

Eyes Only,

You keep comparing the A380 to the B744 (trip costs, etc). The question is between the A380 and the B748, not other airplanes. The bottom line for me is this, the A380 only makes sense when it is filled up with load factors over 90% and does not require mandatory fuel to be carried all over the place. One market comes to mind wrt CX, LHR. It is possible that FRA and CDG could be thrown into the mix.

The A380 is heavy (277T or so), and when it is loaded up with mandatory fuel it can weigh over 300T without a single passenger, pallet, or one drop of trip fuel. So, one certainly needs over 500 seats to spread those costs out.

By contrast, the B748I only weighs 213T. It goes without saying that the requirement for mandatory fuel will be much less. By simple math, the 748 weighs less per seat than does the A380 regardless the haggling over seating configurations. Assuming similar fuel burns per seat, which airplane would you rather own? One with 400+ seats or one with 500+ seats? How about in a downturn? No brainer. The A380 does not offer enough cost advantage (if any) to justify its risk as a financial albatross when the economy downturns.

I think one has to admit, the A380 is (at this stage of the game) a niche aircraft. Qantas remains the only carrier using it across the Pacific (until yesterday that was), and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Perhaps Korean will take them across because the flight times are less from North Asia, but the requirement will still be there for mandatory fuel build-up.

Forget the costs of a new aircraft type and the fact that an A380 is a horrible recession airplane. The question becomes: Is the extra BOW (64T to 90T+ with mandatory buildup) worth less than one hundred extra seats and two LD-3 pallet positions? I am thinking probably not, but it might preserve your hearing...

[dRAGON hEAD]

Nothing is ever as simple as simple minded people would like to have it. First, the "yank engine" blurb. Here's your most proven all American Yank engine having a bad bad day: AA 767 High Pressure Turbine Failure That incident totaled the 767 it was hanging from during a routine engine run test on the ground. Left main tank emptied completely onto the ramp due to several large puncture holes into the lower wing surface skin. Try having THAT happen to you half way across the pacific... with a YANK engine, a GE CF6-80.

Second, the airlines' equipment purchasing decisions are largely influenced by their marketing department since a while ago. All of that number crunching means nothing and will be worth jack sh!t when your competitor flies a more attractive product in direct competition and you have to lower your seat price to be able to sell seats on your 'less attractive to customers' aircraft. Do you think the general public know anything at all about Boeing vs. Airbus ? All they will ever know is how comfortable the interior of it is, period. Larger cabin, more inflight conveniences, the allure of flying on a 'super-jumbo jet' or whatever fancy name they decide to call it, etc... If marketing cannot sell the product, everything else means nothing. And no airline in their right mind would ignore the wishes of it's sales team over number crunchers when the sales team says "we can sell this product for this much and that one for this much less". That's how it works in the airline industry. Good or bad. Nothing new.

[Eyes only]

Bograt,

Wise observation.

Kaptan Balus,

They are not common type ratings (like the A330 and A340), however mixed fleet flying an cross crew qualification is possible. Cathay has the flexibility to use approximately 1000 pilots that could then be extended onto another type(s) without loss of productivity on their current type. Also improves rostering with a mixture of long haul and regional flights.

prairiedriver,

I take it you also think that the new 747 should no longer be considered as QF6 (747) had to return to SIN today on 3 engines ?

cxorcist,

Comparing the A380 to the 744 as that is what it would replace on similar routes.

A "green" A380 has a manufacturers empty weight of around 235t, i.e. close to the fly away empty weight it would have leaving TLS before going to XFW for a passenger interior. The operating empty weight of the aircraft depends on how an airline decides to fit the aircraft out.

A380 fuel burns are very similar to the 744, so are the thrust levels. Takeoff and landing performance on the A380 is significantly better, Air France and Lufthansa are already taking advantage of that out of JNB.

Like it or not the 747-8 is the end of the line for the 747 model, it is an inefficient upgrade to the 744. It is not an attractive passenger aircraft at all from an economics point of view, the revamped 777-300ER that people keep asking for will do just about everything it will do.

The 747-8I has less range than the A380. The A380 is already exceeding fuel burn guarantees by a few percent, with more in the pipeline, the same cannot be said for the 747-8F which is at risk of missing them at the moment.

I am not sure why you are going on about "mandatory fuel". Fuel planning for the A380 is very similar to the 744 including alternate and reserve fuel. The A380 is also fully compliant with the new extended operations rules that will also include quads. A380s have comfortably been doing sectors as long as JFK-HKG (in air miles) with Emirates and Qantas for the past 3 years.

You can add Singapore Airlines to the transpacific list, SQ001 (HKG-SFO) is going to be upgraded to an A380 when they have more delivered. Korean will be using theirs across to LAX. Cathay will soon be competing with A380 services not only regionally, also to the Australia, Middle East, North America, and Europe with the current equipment/seats.

During the recent GFC Singapore Airlines reduced their frequency on the SIN-CDG route, they substituted 7 A380 flights for the 10 777-300ER flights. The A380s added 19% more seat capacity using 9% less total fuel (reduction of around 200 t of fuel per week, or close to 30% on a per seat basis). Load factors on average on the A380 services remained high, even in premium classes.

I do not think Cathay would have 500+ seats in the A380, nor do I think they would put 400+ seats in a 747-8I. In a 4 class configuration I would think the 747-8I would have less capacity than todays 744 has with Cathay.

As Bograt said, it does not matter what we think, the people crunching the numbers most probably would not know the difference between a 777 and a 747.

[dragon man]

hope you dont mind a Qantas 400 driver adding his bit. The 380s appeal in Qantas is because the cabin is fabulous and the IFE works. It is my belief that if a 400 or any other aircraft had the new interior and good IFE it would have the same pax appeal. On an Lax/Syd service one night i followed the 380 out and compared both loadsheets. Both the 400(RR) and 380 were at MTOW. Over the sector the 380 was about 1% more fuel efficient than the 400 per KG of payload. The problem with the 380 as i see it is that as its empty weight is approx 100,000kgs heavy than a 400 you cant afford to operate it with poor load factors as the fuel burn per KG of payload will be prohibitive.