Cathay mulls 787-10 to replace A330s
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay mulls 787-10 to replace A330s
Cathay mulls 787-10 to replace A330s
Cathay Pacific will consider the Boeing 787-10 as a replacement for its Airbus A330-300s that it uses on regional and medium-haul routes.
Boeing "is talking" to potential customers about the aircraft and Hong Kong's flag carrier will consider the largest 787 variant if it fits its requirements, says Cathay's chief executive John Slosar.
"We use the A330s on a lot of regional routes and they are fantastic for us, and there really is still a market for the A330s and possibly even the older [Boeing] 777s," says Slosar.
"But the 787-10 could be interesting. In a way, it will depend on where Boeing go with it. It will be something that will not have the range of the 787-9, but it would be an A330 plus with range and really superior economics. And we would consider the aircraft if we thought that it would fit."
Slosar declines to say when Cathay could make a decision or how many aircraft the carrier will need if it decides to go ahead and order the 787-10. He adds that those decisions are still some way off.
The Oneworld alliance member has 34 A330s in its fleet and another 15 on order, according to Flightglobal Pro data.
Boeing "is talking" to potential customers about the aircraft and Hong Kong's flag carrier will consider the largest 787 variant if it fits its requirements, says Cathay's chief executive John Slosar.
"We use the A330s on a lot of regional routes and they are fantastic for us, and there really is still a market for the A330s and possibly even the older [Boeing] 777s," says Slosar.
"But the 787-10 could be interesting. In a way, it will depend on where Boeing go with it. It will be something that will not have the range of the 787-9, but it would be an A330 plus with range and really superior economics. And we would consider the aircraft if we thought that it would fit."
Slosar declines to say when Cathay could make a decision or how many aircraft the carrier will need if it decides to go ahead and order the 787-10. He adds that those decisions are still some way off.
The Oneworld alliance member has 34 A330s in its fleet and another 15 on order, according to Flightglobal Pro data.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a no-brainer really. More range / payload, 25% better economics than A333, lower cabin altitude, and higher humidity. That said, CX has a tendency to be the launch customer for problematic Airbus models (A346) and not the game changer Boeings models (773ER). Maybe it's a Euro thing...
After being launch customer for the RR powered 744, A333 and 777 CX vowed never to go first again. The A346's were leased from ILFC to try them out and were not meant to be near the front of the queue but the A346 launch customer (VS??) deferred a lot of their deliveries pushing the CX aircraft near to the front much to Engineering's chagrin.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget the A340-200s for which CX was an early lease customer.
Despite not wanting to launch any new plane again, we were one of the very first to get 748Fs and hence got all the heavyweight ones. We will be one of the first to get both the A350-900 and -1000 so
I think any economic benefit promised on paper is outweighing the desire not to be an early customer.
Despite not wanting to launch any new plane again, we were one of the very first to get 748Fs and hence got all the heavyweight ones. We will be one of the first to get both the A350-900 and -1000 so
I think any economic benefit promised on paper is outweighing the desire not to be an early customer.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
swh,
My understanding of the A330 is that the cabin altitude varies between 7-8K feet depending on flight duration. The 787 is supposed to be around 6K. What's the point of your question?
My understanding of the A330 is that the cabin altitude varies between 7-8K feet depending on flight duration. The 787 is supposed to be around 6K. What's the point of your question?
My understanding of the A330 is that the cabin altitude varies between 7-8K feet depending on flight duration. The 787 is supposed to be around 6K. What's the point of your question?
Likewise with the increased cabin humidity, it has been available for some time. Air Mauritius was the first airline to have it in service on their A340s, it is now available on just about everything from 737/A320s jets to 777s. It is not unique to the 787.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Swh,
That's all well and good, but most airlines do not use the humidity function because it has a negative corrosive effect on the metal tubes over time. So the 787 and eventually the A350 will be the only aircraft widely employing this benefit.
The bigger issue is passenger experience. I think it would be hard to make the case that the A330 offers anywhere close to the service potential of a 787. In addition to the aforementioned designs, the larger windows and ride have to be worth something.
I'm not saying the 787 is better (or worse) than an A350 will be, but it certainly kicks the pants off an A330. That said, the comments about purchase price are legitimate, and I'm sure Airbus will do what it has to do with the price to keep selling A330s... just as Boeing has with the 767.
That's all well and good, but most airlines do not use the humidity function because it has a negative corrosive effect on the metal tubes over time. So the 787 and eventually the A350 will be the only aircraft widely employing this benefit.
The bigger issue is passenger experience. I think it would be hard to make the case that the A330 offers anywhere close to the service potential of a 787. In addition to the aforementioned designs, the larger windows and ride have to be worth something.
I'm not saying the 787 is better (or worse) than an A350 will be, but it certainly kicks the pants off an A330. That said, the comments about purchase price are legitimate, and I'm sure Airbus will do what it has to do with the price to keep selling A330s... just as Boeing has with the 767.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
That's all well and good, but most airlines do not use the humidity function because it has a negative corrosive effect on the metal tubes over time. So the 787 and eventually the A350 will be the only aircraft widely employing this benefit.
Lufthansa has it installed in their A380s, it is also found on 747, 767, 777, A300, A310, A330, A340 and most BBJ/VIP types. Cost is the main reason it is not installed.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
In addition to the aforementioned designs, the larger windows and ride have to be worth something.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
I'm not saying the 787 is better (or worse) than an A350 will be, but it certainly kicks the pants off an A330.
The fuselage however is not as wide as the 777/A350 making 9 across in economy a tight fit with narrow seats. Put the A330/777/A350 seats in the 787, it means 8 across in economy.
Originally Posted by nitpicker330
Yes please bring em on
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passenger comfort and bigger windows are not the selling points of the 787. They are marketing branding-gimmic points. Airlines could care less about passenger comfort and bigger windows. Passengers will not notice the difference, and will not pay a dollar more for that (unnoticeable) difference.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Boeing will probably price the 787-10 right to get back in the game with Cathay (losing ground as more A350-1000s are ordered). And weren't the latest A350-1000s ordered to replace the existing 777-300ER fleet going forward?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Despite similar fuselage size, the 350-1000 will not carry anywhere near the payload HKG-JFK or LAX-HKG that the 777-300ER does. So it is not a 777-300ER replacement on missions over approximately 7000 air miles. Hence the reason CX is touting it for Europe. I think the only Pacific crossings you might see it on are YVR or SEA. The range numbers listed for the 1000 are very misleading because it won't carry the 40-50T payload that the 777 does over those distances.
Don't believe me, run the numbers yourself. For 350-1000:
MTOW ~ 302T
BOW ~ 160T (in theory)
Trip Fuel ~ 20% better than -300ER (in theory)
Use these and compare to a MTOW -300ER to JFK...
Looks like Airbus has come up short on wing and/or powerplant.
I believe this is why Boeing is not rushing to develop the 777X. The threat is not real on true ULH missions. For shorter missions (<6000nm), the 787-10 is a very attractive aircraft next to the A359/1000. So what you have is a hypothetical Airbus sandwiched between two very real Boeing types.
Don't believe me, run the numbers yourself. For 350-1000:
MTOW ~ 302T
BOW ~ 160T (in theory)
Trip Fuel ~ 20% better than -300ER (in theory)
Use these and compare to a MTOW -300ER to JFK...
Looks like Airbus has come up short on wing and/or powerplant.
I believe this is why Boeing is not rushing to develop the 777X. The threat is not real on true ULH missions. For shorter missions (<6000nm), the 787-10 is a very attractive aircraft next to the A359/1000. So what you have is a hypothetical Airbus sandwiched between two very real Boeing types.
Last edited by cxorcist; 17th Nov 2012 at 22:24.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Despite similar fuselage size, the 350-1000 will not carry anywhere near the payload HKG-JFK or LAX-HKG that the 777-300ER does. So it is not a 777-300ER replacement on missions over approximately 7000 air miles. Hence the reason CX is touting it for Europe. I think the only Pacific crossings you might see it on are YVR or SEA. The range numbers listed for the 1000 are very misleading because it won't carry the 40-50T payload that the 777 does over those distances.
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Don't believe me, run the numbers yourself. For 350-1000:
MTOW ~ 302T
BOW ~ 160T (in theory)
Trip Fuel ~ 20% better than -300ER (in theory)
MTOW ~ 302T
BOW ~ 160T (in theory)
Trip Fuel ~ 20% better than -300ER (in theory)
Originally Posted by cxorcist
Looks like Airbus has come up short on wing and/or powerplant.
The A350 thrust is 97 klb per side. The 777-9X which will have a wing with a similar L/D as the A350, however 36t higher MTOW, only has 99.5 klb of thrust from the GE9X engine per side.
Another comparison, the thrust to weight ratio of the A350 is better than the 787 and 777-9X, all have wings with L/D ratios in excess of 20:1.
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toxic Haze
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Organophosphate free cabin air is most definitely going to figure in the decision by many airlines to order the 787. I can only assume Cathay is aware of this design feature. At present the only aircraft that employs bleed free technology.