Wide body rumours (CX)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: HK
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, a double deck four engined aircraft is an inherently inefficient design compared to a twin engine widebody. Low seat mile costs come purely from being big, rather than being clever
If your worried about size and weight CX, shouldn't we all be flying the 737? A whole lot lighter than the 777 and carries almost as much. Doesn't seem to make a lot of sense does it, as they are designed to do different things.
As I said, if you only want to carry 300 to 360 people you would go for the Boeing, if you want to carry 500 you only have a 380. Hence comparing the 748 to a 777 would be a good comparison as it is not a 380 replacement.
We put five 380s a day into LHR. That's equivalent to 7.5 of our 773ers, how much does that save per day in lease costs, slot costs, crew costs etc etc.
I do agree with you though as the 777 is a very good freighter. It just happens that the 380 is very good at carrying pax. The on board showers and bar area seem to go down a treat.
The Don
As I said, if you only want to carry 300 to 360 people you would go for the Boeing, if you want to carry 500 you only have a 380. Hence comparing the 748 to a 777 would be a good comparison as it is not a 380 replacement.
We put five 380s a day into LHR. That's equivalent to 7.5 of our 773ers, how much does that save per day in lease costs, slot costs, crew costs etc etc.
I do agree with you though as the 777 is a very good freighter. It just happens that the 380 is very good at carrying pax. The on board showers and bar area seem to go down a treat.
The Don
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Freehills,
I think you are correct about that. The -8I struggles in the same way, but to a lesser extent since the upper deck is narrower and shorter. Doing the same math on the -8I reveals that it carries about 26-27% revenue as a percentage of MZFW. It is smack dab in the middle between the 777 and the A380, right where you would expect it to be.
So the question becomes twofold: Does CX want to sacrifice big twin efficiency for the prestige / product offering associated with the quads? And does CX take an incremental / slightly less glamorous step with the -8I? Or does it make a larger / more risky / more glamorous A380 investment?
Knowing the market and the Swires, it's not hard to figure out that it will be the -8I or nothing.
I think you are correct about that. The -8I struggles in the same way, but to a lesser extent since the upper deck is narrower and shorter. Doing the same math on the -8I reveals that it carries about 26-27% revenue as a percentage of MZFW. It is smack dab in the middle between the 777 and the A380, right where you would expect it to be.
So the question becomes twofold: Does CX want to sacrifice big twin efficiency for the prestige / product offering associated with the quads? And does CX take an incremental / slightly less glamorous step with the -8I? Or does it make a larger / more risky / more glamorous A380 investment?
Knowing the market and the Swires, it's not hard to figure out that it will be the -8I or nothing.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don,
A 737 carries "almost" 50T like a 777? Really? And how far does it carry it? What planet are you living on? I think the sand down there is finding its way into your brain. You might want to have that checked out...
As for showers and bars, I'd only be excited about those if I could use them. Since you can't use either, I might be more concerned about not being credited for my time spent in the bunk if I were you.
A 737 carries "almost" 50T like a 777? Really? And how far does it carry it? What planet are you living on? I think the sand down there is finding its way into your brain. You might want to have that checked out...
As for showers and bars, I'd only be excited about those if I could use them. Since you can't use either, I might be more concerned about not being credited for my time spent in the bunk if I were you.
Oh dear cx, didn't mean to upset you. As the 737 is to the 77, the 777 is to the 380. Case rested.
Not sure where you get your info from son, but your knowledge of our ops would seem to be as flawed as your knowledge of , well everything really. Never mind, you do seem to have a thing with math. Good for you.
The Don
Not sure where you get your info from son, but your knowledge of our ops would seem to be as flawed as your knowledge of , well everything really. Never mind, you do seem to have a thing with math. Good for you.
The Don
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Don. Well explained thoughts. I agree with your reasoning.
Buy the way cx...your a dick,so typical of you to start insulting people when they have better reasoning than your em..er...ug 747-8 is...er goodly...ugh!!!
Buy the way cx...your a dick,so typical of you to start insulting people when they have better reasoning than your em..er...ug 747-8 is...er goodly...ugh!!!
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so typical of you to start insulting people
STP
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the presentation Boeing made late last year at CX city to sell 12 B747-8i to CX the -8i has a slightly lower cost per seat mile then the 777-300ER on routes like HKG-JFK and similar.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the presentation Boeing made late last year at CX city to sell 12 B747-8i to CX the -8i has a slightly lower cost per seat mile then the 777-300ER on routes like HKG-JFK and similar.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Fragrant Harbour
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously cost per seat mile is cost per seat, per mile. Of course it is based on a full airplane. Otherwise it is not possible to compare cost between aircraft types for a specific route. Profitability is determined by load factor, ticket prices and resulting yield.
Cost per seat mile includes all type specific costs like capital cost, maintenance, reserves, fuel burn, crewing, training and many more. I am sure Boeing disclosed in their sales pitch how they came up with their numbers.
Cost per seat mile includes all type specific costs like capital cost, maintenance, reserves, fuel burn, crewing, training and many more. I am sure Boeing disclosed in their sales pitch how they came up with their numbers.
Last edited by GTC58; 14th Feb 2013 at 23:58.
Let me see..........
Trust Airbus's promises with regards to performance or trust Boeing????
Mmmmm difficult decision.
BOEING DELIVER.
( with regards to performance predictions, ok.. )
Trust Airbus's promises with regards to performance or trust Boeing????
Mmmmm difficult decision.
BOEING DELIVER.
( with regards to performance predictions, ok.. )
Last edited by nitpicker330; 15th Feb 2013 at 08:25.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fellow Harbour Dwellers,
Your name calling and petty criticisms of spelling and grammar only serve as evidence that you do not have substantive counter arguments, or that you are too lazy to explain them if you do. It's so typical these days to attack the person rather than debate the topic. Perhaps we can avoid that in the future.
For Don, I owe an apology for an insulting post. I had a few glasses of wine along with that one and should never have sent it. I did not pick up on the intended parallel between the 737/777 and the 777/380 as I should have. I still think it is a silly comparison, but I do see the point.
For the record I think the A380 is a fabulous airplane for Emirates and those airlines with similar business models, just not for Cathay (or Qantas for that matter). I have no doubt that it is lovely inside, certainly better than any 777 and perhaps more than a -8I could ever hope to be. Be that as it may, we all know there is a lot more to aircraft purchase decisions than the product offering inside the cabin, and there is little doubt that CX passengers in both F and J classes would be very happy in either a well appointed -8I or A380.
Your name calling and petty criticisms of spelling and grammar only serve as evidence that you do not have substantive counter arguments, or that you are too lazy to explain them if you do. It's so typical these days to attack the person rather than debate the topic. Perhaps we can avoid that in the future.
For Don, I owe an apology for an insulting post. I had a few glasses of wine along with that one and should never have sent it. I did not pick up on the intended parallel between the 737/777 and the 777/380 as I should have. I still think it is a silly comparison, but I do see the point.
For the record I think the A380 is a fabulous airplane for Emirates and those airlines with similar business models, just not for Cathay (or Qantas for that matter). I have no doubt that it is lovely inside, certainly better than any 777 and perhaps more than a -8I could ever hope to be. Be that as it may, we all know there is a lot more to aircraft purchase decisions than the product offering inside the cabin, and there is little doubt that CX passengers in both F and J classes would be very happy in either a well appointed -8I or A380.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your name calling and petty criticisms of spelling and grammar only serve as evidence that you do not have substantive counter arguments, or that you are too lazy to explain them if you do. It's so typical these days to attack the person rather than debate the topic. Perhaps we can avoid that in the future.
Secondly, you seem to want to have your cake and eat it because by criticising a person for lacking what you deem to be a substantive argument you are, by definition, attacking the person.
Finally, I've always understood 'we' to mean 'all of us'. Why do I get the distinct impression you wanted to write "Perhaps you can avoid that in the future."?
STP
Wrong, with respect to performance figures they deliver as promised whereas Airbus are notorious for not delivering.
Yes the 787 is grounded and ANA etc are suffering ( Boeing will compensate them ) but the 787 is exceeding performance predictions as are the 748f we operate in CX. Entry into service teething problems are common for ALL types.
Inflight Performance is what we were talking about wasn't it? .
Yes the 787 is grounded and ANA etc are suffering ( Boeing will compensate them ) but the 787 is exceeding performance predictions as are the 748f we operate in CX. Entry into service teething problems are common for ALL types.
Inflight Performance is what we were talking about wasn't it? .
Last edited by nitpicker330; 15th Feb 2013 at 08:28.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the 787is more than teething problems. I think the way the whole project was mamnaged from the start was a bit sub par for Boeing.
I must also add that the 380 is also doing very well at airline like EK, SIN and a few others, so in the right route and destination it would also do well at CX.
I must also add that the 380 is also doing very well at airline like EK, SIN and a few others, so in the right route and destination it would also do well at CX.
Fair play to ya CX.
The Don
The Don