Wide body rumours (CX)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 3.5 from TD
Age: 47
Posts: 1,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as I know only QF and as a result of Crit points, mand fuel and RFF enroute (as white none correctly alluded) they land in LAX with approx 50 T sloshing around in the tanks.
The only real issue I could see is the cargo carrying capacity. You have the same cargo carrying space but two full decks of passengers. this clearly means less space for all the bags, and even less space for revenue cargo. But cargo has weakened substantially, they cry about it every Friday.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: nfa
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only aircraft that are carrying less freight are the freighters. Every time a 777 takes off on long haul, it's got several tons along with all those bags. Not unusual to have 15 to 17 tons from N.A.
Last edited by bm330; 3rd Feb 2013 at 01:53. Reason: sp.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But why is Lufthansa the only carrier to order the -8 when every one else has gone for the 380,
Actually a few other airlines have ordered the 747-8i like Korean and Air China as well as (I believe) Arik Air of Nigeria although I doubt they will ever take delivery.
then look at SIA, if the aircraft was so bad why have they just ordered 20 more
Last edited by geh065; 3rd Feb 2013 at 04:03.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Emirates have a different strategy to SQ so they can't really be compared in the same way. I don't think he meant to say that everyone regrets buying A380s....just SQ.
...and the geniuses running the QANTAS group also ordered the 787 
.
So: what's it to be for CX? The warmed-over Boeing that no-one else wants (so must be going real cheap) but doesn't have the passenger appeal, or the 'Dugong', popular with the 'punters', but reputedly doesn't have the payload/range for CX, and can't carry the freight?
As much as I am an Airbus fan, I find the words 'cheap' and 'Cathay Pacific' synonymous, and my bet's on the Boeing. On the face of aggressive orders for the 380 from SQ and the middle east, CX have probably missed the boat on any cheap offerings or early introduction into service for the Dugong.
Anyhoo, if a previous post is correct, J.S. seems to know what's good for other airlines, so I'm sure he'll make the right decision for CX...won't he?
.So: what's it to be for CX? The warmed-over Boeing that no-one else wants (so must be going real cheap) but doesn't have the passenger appeal, or the 'Dugong', popular with the 'punters', but reputedly doesn't have the payload/range for CX, and can't carry the freight?
As much as I am an Airbus fan, I find the words 'cheap' and 'Cathay Pacific' synonymous, and my bet's on the Boeing. On the face of aggressive orders for the 380 from SQ and the middle east, CX have probably missed the boat on any cheap offerings or early introduction into service for the Dugong.
Anyhoo, if a previous post is correct, J.S. seems to know what's good for other airlines, so I'm sure he'll make the right decision for CX...won't he?
Last edited by Captain Dart; 4th Feb 2013 at 01:19.
the only regrets in QF for the '80 is from the rusted on 744 guys that are holding on too tight. The Flying Vagina (ugly on the outside but bloody comfortable inside) is incredibly popular with the punters, so much so they are making our 744 interiors look the same and marketing it as the 'a380 experience', on a 747... 
depending on the route taken, usually about 17-18t o/head LAX, usual arrival weights, ~11t/hr holding for that.
Newly config'd ac have nearly 500 seats with many premium, you just have to fill em... (which lately we've been doing)
Yes, ops are pretty restrained by many airfields unable to accommodate but that's not too much of a problem for our little airline only flying to a handful of destinations
depending on the route taken, usually about 17-18t o/head LAX, usual arrival weights, ~11t/hr holding for that.
Newly config'd ac have nearly 500 seats with many premium, you just have to fill em... (which lately we've been doing)
Yes, ops are pretty restrained by many airfields unable to accommodate but that's not too much of a problem for our little airline only flying to a handful of destinations
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Stuck in the middle...
Posts: 1,638
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
every one else has gone for the 380, then look at SIA, if the aircraft was so bad why have they just ordered 20 more
They ordered 20 A350s at the same time.
One question might be, how many A350s might Airbus throw in to sweeten the deal?
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm,
so let's see. That will be...count 'em:
A330 (no replacement as yet, and a true workhorse)
A340 For the next coupla' years at least, (Dammit!)until the:
A350 (One day....)
B777 (no replacement as yet, also a true workhorse)
B747 400 pax and freight for the next coupla' years at least, they will still have to keep some running until the freight operation is at full 'dash eight and triple seven size, and a VLA is chosen and up to strength.
B747-8 freighters
...and now an A380 fleet of some minimum size to justify its set up/engineering costs et al...? (I'm told a minimum of 10 airframes to justify, but I'm happy to be corrected)
So...
7 types, effectively, short term, settling down to maybe 4 or 5.
I know there will be some phasing out and overlap, so that fleet size won't be permanent, but still...an awful lot of extra load on engineering and training for this little old carrier.
I just can't see CX running that many incongruent types. (Ansett anyone?)To that end, I would've thought the B747-8i was a shoe-in, for all the reasons mentioned on this thread.
Which is NOT to say I believe it is the best long term solution to the capacity/slot problems of the future, but I think the build slots on the A380 pretty much belong to EK for the forseeable future, and CX just don't like spending money on big aeroplanes if they can help it. (We didn't get our first B747 until 1979!) Especially when we've already said it won't quite do what we want it to in terms of freight and range. Management want the MK2 version, but I think that is a long way off...
Interesting times. I, for one, await the evaluation and final choice, if there is one, with much interest. Either way, sidestick or yoke, I'll fly it!
so let's see. That will be...count 'em:
A330 (no replacement as yet, and a true workhorse)
A340 For the next coupla' years at least, (Dammit!)until the:
A350 (One day....)
B777 (no replacement as yet, also a true workhorse)
B747 400 pax and freight for the next coupla' years at least, they will still have to keep some running until the freight operation is at full 'dash eight and triple seven size, and a VLA is chosen and up to strength.
B747-8 freighters
...and now an A380 fleet of some minimum size to justify its set up/engineering costs et al...? (I'm told a minimum of 10 airframes to justify, but I'm happy to be corrected)
So...
7 types, effectively, short term, settling down to maybe 4 or 5.
I know there will be some phasing out and overlap, so that fleet size won't be permanent, but still...an awful lot of extra load on engineering and training for this little old carrier.
I just can't see CX running that many incongruent types. (Ansett anyone?)To that end, I would've thought the B747-8i was a shoe-in, for all the reasons mentioned on this thread.
Which is NOT to say I believe it is the best long term solution to the capacity/slot problems of the future, but I think the build slots on the A380 pretty much belong to EK for the forseeable future, and CX just don't like spending money on big aeroplanes if they can help it. (We didn't get our first B747 until 1979!) Especially when we've already said it won't quite do what we want it to in terms of freight and range. Management want the MK2 version, but I think that is a long way off...
Interesting times. I, for one, await the evaluation and final choice, if there is one, with much interest. Either way, sidestick or yoke, I'll fly it!
Join Date: May 2009
Location: VHHH Ocean 2D
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of the numbers regarding 747-8i vs A380 vx 777x, I think the wrong question is being asked here.
The main legacy carriers in SE Asia (our competition) and Emirates are using A380. Passengers do like them. To the uneducated, the A380 is the new 747 flying. The major airlines want to be seen flying the newest and the best because that does attract passengers,
Can Cathay Pacific afford NOT to have an A380?
The main legacy carriers in SE Asia (our competition) and Emirates are using A380. Passengers do like them. To the uneducated, the A380 is the new 747 flying. The major airlines want to be seen flying the newest and the best because that does attract passengers,
Can Cathay Pacific afford NOT to have an A380?
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: In the land of smog
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where are you going to park them?
I am lead to believe that HKIA only has a few gates capable of handling the A380 which raises the question of where they'll park in HK..?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What bm330 wrote is exactly right. Most passengers don't know one airplane from another. Many of the frequent flyers / corporate customers paying high fares do note the difference however. I've heard there have been complaints about the 777 on the LHR route. Many of the 1st class whales will only fly on the -400. It is hard to beat walking onboard and turning left to an exclusive and private space. Similarly, business class upstairs (despite higher noise levels) has an exclusive feel to it that passengers like.
I'm sure the A380 is a sweet ride, and there is no doubt passengers love it. But the -8 is a very nice ride as well. There is no question in my mind that a well done interior on the -8I would have no trouble competing with an A380 both in terms of passenger appeal and economics for CX.
Ultimately, the notion that CX will end up choosing A380s seems highly unlikely at this stage. This is not to say it couldn't happen in the future, but for now the down side risks on the A380 are significant. There is very little risk for CX buying the -8I. The logistics are already set up, and the airline knows it can deploy them profitably within the current route structure / marketplace.
I'm sure the A380 is a sweet ride, and there is no doubt passengers love it. But the -8 is a very nice ride as well. There is no question in my mind that a well done interior on the -8I would have no trouble competing with an A380 both in terms of passenger appeal and economics for CX.
Ultimately, the notion that CX will end up choosing A380s seems highly unlikely at this stage. This is not to say it couldn't happen in the future, but for now the down side risks on the A380 are significant. There is very little risk for CX buying the -8I. The logistics are already set up, and the airline knows it can deploy them profitably within the current route structure / marketplace.
Last edited by cxorcist; 4th Feb 2013 at 17:01.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I don't know about the others, but VMMC cannot be filed as a -8 alternate although it can take them in an emergency. So I find it unlikely that VMMC can be filed as an A380 alternate. Where are you getting your information?