6 More A350
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Hong K ong
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 More A350
Delivery 2016-17. Maybe the deal is attached to the A380 or maybe not..
Well its good news us & maybe the top cx fleet in future.
Well its good news us & maybe the top cx fleet in future.
Last edited by crewsunite; 20th Jan 2012 at 10:51.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa struggling to fill their 380s and Emirates too. I still think CX has the right approach, smaller aircraft with more frequency/cargo space/and seats over all.... AND, the 747-8 is already in the airline and doing well by all accounts.
And will the 350 REALLY be a 777 killer? Personally, I doubt it!
And will the 350 REALLY be a 777 killer? Personally, I doubt it!
Double dare ya to find a spare seat on an EK380.
Can't they just impose a more restrictive CoG for inflight like they did on the B773ER to fix these B748 flutters? Its Boeing so this is all ok.
Can't they just impose a more restrictive CoG for inflight like they did on the B773ER to fix these B748 flutters? Its Boeing so this is all ok.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilots never seem to get this. High load factors and big numbers of seats sold are not the sole metric for profitability. Any airline can fill any size airplane on just about any route if it is willing to sell seats cheap enough. I'm not saying that EK is doing this or that they are not profitable. However, we will never really know with them because of state involvement with their finances.
Revenue management and yield per seat are critically important. Why do you suppose CX is willing to take seats out of long haul aircraft to offer premium economy? Because they are betting that this configuration will make more money. Surely the seats will be sold for greater profitability than economy, even when factoring in the reduced number of seats. Also, fewer punters equals fewer bags which opens more space for cargo. The A380 flies in the opposite direction.
In short, CX cares very little about low fare hunters crammed into the back by the lavs. They are only one step above non-rev travelers on the food chain. CX is after yield efficiency, not mass when it comes to revenue generation. Perhaps EK's business model supports more mass, but I'm not that familiar.
Revenue management and yield per seat are critically important. Why do you suppose CX is willing to take seats out of long haul aircraft to offer premium economy? Because they are betting that this configuration will make more money. Surely the seats will be sold for greater profitability than economy, even when factoring in the reduced number of seats. Also, fewer punters equals fewer bags which opens more space for cargo. The A380 flies in the opposite direction.
In short, CX cares very little about low fare hunters crammed into the back by the lavs. They are only one step above non-rev travelers on the food chain. CX is after yield efficiency, not mass when it comes to revenue generation. Perhaps EK's business model supports more mass, but I'm not that familiar.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: third rock from the sun
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HKJunkie, what are you talking about? The -8F does not even have a tail tank.
The Wraith is commenting that the numbers are supposedly meeting or exceeding published numbers.
The Wraith is commenting that the numbers are supposedly meeting or exceeding published numbers.
Also, fewer punters equals fewer bags which opens more space for cargo. The A380 flies in the opposite direction.
Just imagine how much cargo we could carry if all the seats were taken out? You plonker.
Just imagine how much cargo we could carry if all the seats were taken out? You plonker.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not my point at all genius! I'm just stating that low yield economy seats don't just chew up floor space on the main deck but cargo space below as well. I do not think those passengers are CX's bread and butter. Business travelers and cargo most definitely are. Why else would CX reduce a 300 pax 777 to introduce a fourth product offering, premium economy?
I know all you Airbus flyers are hoping for a big lifestyle improvement with an A380 order, but it is just very unlikely from everything I hear and can logically deduce. The A350 is your best chance at long haul flying in the future. Unfortunately, that appears to be quite a few years off at this point.
I know all you Airbus flyers are hoping for a big lifestyle improvement with an A380 order, but it is just very unlikely from everything I hear and can logically deduce. The A350 is your best chance at long haul flying in the future. Unfortunately, that appears to be quite a few years off at this point.
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: .
Posts: 2,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The aerodynamic flutter on the -8f was one of the reasons in its delay, this was sorted a long time ago with changes to the gear doors design, unless of course it has reappeared which I am not aware of on the -8f.
Read link for comment on the subject of potential 747-8 WING flutter problem with the tail tank more than 15% full. The quick fix apparently is to inhibit the fuel system from carrying any fuel in the tail which obviously results in a reduction of range. The permanent fix has not been announced:
Business & Technology | Boeing blocked from carrying fuel in 747-8 tail until problem fixed | Seattle Times Newspaper
Edited to correct previous and clarify a wing flutter problem rather than a tail flutter problem.
Business & Technology | Boeing blocked from carrying fuel in 747-8 tail until problem fixed | Seattle Times Newspaper
Edited to correct previous and clarify a wing flutter problem rather than a tail flutter problem.
Last edited by FlexibleResponse; 22nd Jan 2012 at 11:18.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cx does nothing better than make money. They know their business model and follow it well. If they buy the 380 it will be because they get it for free...the TRUE value of a Bus.... But I doubt CX will go down route again. The 747-8i is a happy medium....offers seats when needed but no over capacity during the downturns. Cargo space, reliability and commonality for crews, engineering etc...
But, ultimately, we shall wait and see! Both aircraft have their merits.
But, ultimately, we shall wait and see! Both aircraft have their merits.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: U.S.
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it will be any of the two.
777 and 350/330 for pax, 748 and 777 for freight, that's it.
777 and 350/330 for pax, 748 and 777 for freight, that's it.
Box
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Liquifaction Island
Age: 64
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
heathrow is not getting a larger aircraft
777 courses for that base are already being scheduled for 2012
Two 777 by the end of 2012 daily and four by the end of 2013.
More J class.
Also 777 freighters going in that direction.
747 freighter out, 777 freighter in due noise.
747 only manchester,ams,
777 (frt)out of heathrow via milan links with pax(777) service through there.
crew coverage another under the table reserve.
777 courses for that base are already being scheduled for 2012
Two 777 by the end of 2012 daily and four by the end of 2013.
More J class.
Also 777 freighters going in that direction.
747 freighter out, 777 freighter in due noise.
747 only manchester,ams,
777 (frt)out of heathrow via milan links with pax(777) service through there.
crew coverage another under the table reserve.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Turnandburn's version is consistent with what I heard from a very senior LHR based STC. He has already been offered the 777 course. I believe they will go to primarily or all 777 in LHR. They may choose to augment this with -8I or A380 if they get them and need more seats. Also, I heard the LHR freighter may be cancelled so they can run a 5th pax service. Worth considering that 5 777 pax flights could carry about 20T each (100T total) worth of freight. Perhaps satellite airports such as Gatwick and Manchester factor in as well.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: York International
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Upgrade to 777!
Our masters up North like the 777 too. I hate to say it but the 747 has had its day as a pax mover.
From ATW:
Air China (CA) will debut its Boeing 777-300ER Feb. 1, on the Los Angeles (LAX)-Beijing (PEK) night flight, replacing a 747-400. CA, which is the only carrier to provide nonstop service between the two cities, doubled the daily service in September. It will go one step further to enhance the route in June when it plans to upgrade the 747-400 day flight between LAX and PEK to the 777-300ER.
From ATW:
Air China (CA) will debut its Boeing 777-300ER Feb. 1, on the Los Angeles (LAX)-Beijing (PEK) night flight, replacing a 747-400. CA, which is the only carrier to provide nonstop service between the two cities, doubled the daily service in September. It will go one step further to enhance the route in June when it plans to upgrade the 747-400 day flight between LAX and PEK to the 777-300ER.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lufthansa confirmed that that they will have no problem operating without the stab fuel until the solution is found.
They are confident the aircraft will have a 8000nm range with a economical payload and should gain 300-400nm when they get the stab fuel.
Longest route they use their 744 on currently (and longest route in the network) is FRA-EZE.
Keep in mind that unlike CX, LH operates the 744 at 394t MTOW vs. CX's 396t (on some tails).
Their second batch of deliveries only have a 385t MTOW and don't even have the stab fuel tank. (still manage to operate FRA-EZE).
Regarding the 748... boeing just announced a 6t MTOW increase via service bulletin. Aircraft already in service with 442t will thus go to 448t.
They are confident the aircraft will have a 8000nm range with a economical payload and should gain 300-400nm when they get the stab fuel.
Longest route they use their 744 on currently (and longest route in the network) is FRA-EZE.
Keep in mind that unlike CX, LH operates the 744 at 394t MTOW vs. CX's 396t (on some tails).
Their second batch of deliveries only have a 385t MTOW and don't even have the stab fuel tank. (still manage to operate FRA-EZE).
Regarding the 748... boeing just announced a 6t MTOW increase via service bulletin. Aircraft already in service with 442t will thus go to 448t.