A350 delayed (again)

[cxorcist]

SWH,

All the registrations you reference are classic 747s except one. Very deceptive.

You are confident that the unbuilt A350 will be more efficient than a 777X which has not even finalized its specs? Get real joker!

Yes, I know the max ZFW for the A33/40. And yes, I know they can be increased. So when will we actually see one. There is no shortage of A340s available for conversion. I can't wait to see a 340F limp off the runway!

The A320/737NG numbers are not questionable. The answer to your question about 50/50 split lies in the fact that the Airbus is much cheaper, but it will cost more in the long run due to lost efficiency and reliability. You can find the dispatch reliability numbers for yourself...

The carbon fiber technology I was referring to is not fuselage construction but attaching the wings to that fuselage. Good luck Airbus! I understand they are hand drilling each rivet. That shouldn't take too long...

Let's not pretend the A380 wing crack problem is a non-issue. It directly affects production rates and eventually all the wings will need to be fixed. This will likely result in increased time out of service. You would like to compare this to cracks on 20 year old aircraft. Ok, but I'm not sure that's a great comparison.

The 748I tail tank is a non-issue. With a realistic load, it won't be used anyways. The -8I certainly would make HKG-JFK with 400 plus passengers. The question is how much cargo it would be able to take along. I suspect the limitation will be volumetric, not performance based.

Just because the A380 will be doing those routes proves nothing. The question is what load they will carry into the wind coming back. I suspect it won't be pretty based on Qantas' experience. You don't deny that the A380 can't even carry its own bags on the LAX route.

I'm not going to argue the whole WTO case, but let's just agree that Airbus has had heaps of help trying to get caught up with Boeing. Have they caught up? I would say no. Boeing garners a higher premium on average for its aircraft. This is why its profit margins are significantly better.

[Steve the Pirate]

Cxorcist, the aim of my post was merely to point out that Boeing too have been recipients of illegal funding as your original post on this thread might have led the casual observer to think that Airbus are the bad guys and Boeing are knights in shining armour, so to speak. I opened the door for you do discuss the amounts involved but I rather hoped you'd do so in a less dismissive manner - I expected better from you of all people. Be that as it may, simply because the Boeing figure is lower than the Airbus figure doesn't make it any less illegal. I had planned to go into details about the funding but swh has written a more concise summary than I might have.

Whatever the outcome of this A vs B thread, I don't get any choice in which equipment I fly and there's no pay differential between the types so I try not to get heartburn over it. Yes, Boeing make good aircraft but so do Airbus. Oh, and by the way, I haven't spoken to one Boeing pilot that truly understands VNAV whereas I've spoken to hundreds who completely understand the other brand's version thereof but hey, maybe I'm being narrow-minded.

STP

[cxorcist]

STP,

Fair enough on the subsidies. WRT VNAV, the moment I stop understanding it I revert to basic modes (which is pretty much after the initial descent). I am still pretty good at my three times tables, so it usually works out well. Cheers.

[geh065]

So how many Boeing aircraft have had successful conversion programs? Well, the 72,3,4(Classic and -400),5,& 67 - count them, 7

I think it is a bit unfair to compare Boeing's history and heritage to Airbus which is a relatively new company in comparison. So it isn't any surprise that Airbus do not have the same number of freighter converted aircraft; Boeing have produced so many more airliners in their history. Also, planes aren't built the way they used to. Planes like the 707, 727, DC8 etc were built like brick sh*thouses and perfect for the rough world of freight especially when ending up in African or South American operations. I would be surprised if even Boeing's future aircraft such as the 787 will be capable of such things and in fact with the carbon fuselage, who knows whether they will even be able to cut a freight door in it to make a BCF!

[Dragon69]

Out of interest cxorcist have you ever flown an Airbus? Do you hold an aeronautical engineering degree? Are you privy to statistical information from the Engineering Department at Cx, or even worked in that Department? Have you even ever worked for the Planning and Purchasing Department?

If you're forming an opinion based on information provided by Richard Quest and trying to argue your point without having any of the credentials above, well the only clown here is really you!

I am not an A verus B guy! I've flown both and they each have their pros and cons from a pilot's perspective. But I have to admit, the 330 is a great workhorse around the region. The 340 on the other hand....the sooner we get rid of them the happier I will be.

[Night Watch]

I am not an A verus B guy! I've flown both and they each have their pros and cons from a pilot's perspective. But I have to admit, the 330 is a great workhorse around the region. The 340 on the other hand....the sooner we get rid of them the happier I will be.

Exactly what I was about to say!

[crwjerk]

As we're all entitled to our opinions here, you're all comparing Apples to Apples, O days to Reserve Days....... bla bla!
Whatever aircraft you fly, like it or not, you'll be fatigued, overworked, underpaid, COS abused, divorced, stuck in HK forever, grumpy, and waiting for the AOA to save you.
CX will buy, lease, steal BOTH brands, so suck it up and enjoy the Middle East or North America/Europe, whichever aircraft you fly!

[fatbus]

The reference of the 777 to a blond is perfect. Now what would the 380 be?

[Cumguzzler]

David Puddy from Airbus recently claimed that the 350 wouldn't be more than 12 months.

[cxorcist]

Dragon,

Thanks for the thorough rebuke. You feel all better now? Your notion that one must belong to one of those departments to have a valid opinion really only shows that you're the clown. How would an aeronautical engineering degree help? We're not building them here. We're judging based on strengths and weaknesses. I think an Econ degree or MBA might be more useful because this is really all about money.

You might be surprised how much good info can be gleaned from the CFP if you have a few other numbers like BOWs and pax carried. From there, figuring cargo weights is pretty easy. Subsequently, it is not difficult to generate a good idea of an aircrafts' capabilities throughout the network. Perhaps you should role up your long sleeves and try it some time when you can't sleep on an overnight.

For the record, I never insinuated that the 330 was not a good aircraft. Clearly, it is the backbone of CX's medium range and regional operation. However, I'm not sure it will be a good converted freighter. Time will tell. In the meantime, enjoy your roster...

[iceman50]

cxorcist

I think an Econ degree or MBA might be more useful because this is really all about money.

That's you shot yourself in both feet now!

[cxorcist]

Ice,

Perhaps you've noticed... Successful airlines are not run by pilots, or aeronautical engineers. I would never argue that those backgrounds couldn't help, but they are equally likely to be harmful. At the end of the day it's all about dollars and cents, and some airplanes are better than others at generating those profits.

Cheers.

[F_one]

Cxorcist

Boeing is better because blah blah blah......

Both will get you from A to B. Stop flogging a dead horse

[Frogman1484]

And through the night!

[geh065]

Boeing is better because blah blah blah......

Both will get you from A to B. Stop flogging a dead horse

As will both a Ferrari or a Kia. Doesn't mean one isn't better than the other for the driver. Though of course it is irrelevant if all your job really means to you is getting you and your passengers from A to B.

[F_one]

As will both a Ferrari or a Kia. Doesn't mean one isn't better than the other for the driver. Though of course it is irrelevant if all your job really means to you is getting you and your passengers from A to B.

I've flown both types and yes, all they do is to get passengers from A to B. What else does YOUR Boeing do that makes it so special? Please do tell.

As for your very lame Ferrari vs Kia argument, firstly it's not an apples with apples comparison, but let's pretend it is. When stuck in bumber to bumber traffic, I'm sure the Ferrari will do wonders with its racing gearbox and stiff clutch, whilst the Kia will really shine around the Nürburgring.

[geh065]

I've flown both types and yes, all they do is to get passengers from A to B. What else does YOUR Boeing do that makes it so special? Please do tell.

If thats all this job means to you then there is little point of arguing with you. For some of us, that feeling of excitement we experienced on our first few flights in a Cessna still exists to some level even all these years later. I feel sorry for you if that feeling has left you.

[Steve the Pirate]

Cxorcist

You say:

However, I'm not sure it will be a good converted freighter. Time will tell.

I don't mean to appear obtuse but since when has the ability to convert a passenger aircraft into a freighter been a criterion for deciding how good an aircraft it is? Further you said earlier:

The only reason their aircraft sell is because the cost of ownership is lower than the Boeing equivalent.

Surely that falls under the fiduciary responsibility of the board of any company so that they can create a better return on their investment? I hold neither an Econ degree nor an MBA but I would have thought that principle might have been a pretty pivotal theme in the course.

Using your logic, if we assess an aircraft by its cost of ownership and ability to be converted into a freighter then why are the BCFs going? I would have thought that they are owned outright (standing-by to be corrected) and they've already been turned into freighters, ergo, they must be brilliant aircraft surely?

I know you were joking about VNAV but if you do use V/S or FLCH(?) from TOD then the FMC must be a TUPOS, IMHO.

STP

[contractor25]

Apples and Pears

Interesting discussion. Reality: comparing apples and pears

B738 v A320? try getting a cargo container in a B738....

Reason A320 P2F is basically scrapped? No available airframes as the demand is so high. B737 lacks volume.

A300P2F: DHL has bought airframes which are @ 30000FC/HR which are presently undergoing conversion. The aircraft fits profile for OPS by DHL/FEDEX and is cheaper to run as B744.

Reason some aircraft get converted more than others is simple, good payload/volume and purchase price. Availibilty depends on numbers built and operating cost.

I've been working on the maintenance side for 20 odd years, even worked for a guy who started 2 airlines, the first with a all boeing fleet, the second with all airbus. My preference? An aircraft with plenty of work, I don't care what it says on the data plate. One is as bad as the other, but in the end they all fly after enough money has been spend on maintenance(more money, less MEL's)

[F_one]

If thats all this job means to you then there is little point of arguing with you. For some of us, that feeling of excitement we experienced on our first few flights in a Cessna still exists to some level even all these years later. I feel sorry for you if that feeling has left you.

That's precisely my point. Whether it's an Airbus, Boeing or Cessna it doesn't matter. It's about the privilege of being able to go fly. I've never said or even implied that I hate flying.

PS: Have I been married to you before, because my ex also heard things that I've never said before! Always arguing that's what I meant.