Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Fragrant Harbour
Reload this Page >

B748i or A380 order?

Fragrant Harbour A forum for the large number of pilots (expats and locals) based with the various airlines in Hong Kong. Air Traffic Controllers are also warmly welcomed into the forum.

B748i or A380 order?

Old 25th Jun 2013, 03:08
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Location Location
Posts: 100
And somehow KE, TG, MH, LH, BA, AF... have all managed to slot these into their rosters in some productive fashion. Amazing. Not only that, but LH and KE have doubled down and ordered from both buffet items. I suppose CX will be eating their lunches soon too?

There's bean counting... and bean counting. I think dominating the Hong Kong aviation market for so long has made CX's management soft.

We'll have more hard data soon enough though. BA's whales are beaching here in November, apparently in the midst of the next downturn in the ongoing financial crisis saga event thing. No better way to test all these splendid theories on capacity etcetera than in a lukewarm economy.
Shutterbug is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 03:25
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,013
Let's put it this way for the LHR market (1500 seats and 100T cargo)...

3 x A380 + 1 x 747F

Or

5 x 777-300ER

... Maybe an oversimplification, but which is cheaper to operate and provides more flexibility in the case of a downturn.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 25th Jun 2013, 04:56
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 175
Perhaps our management have not been shown the big picture as predicted by Air China's bean counters. As with Jack and the Beanstalk, you gotta know your beans and you enemy / competition. No decision on VLA, when told it would be forthcoming by mid 2013, means look for the deception plan.
The FUB is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 15:53
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Hong Kong
Age: 64
Posts: 686
After enough years in CX to qualify for a wheelchair...my vote is for frequency over heavy-lift.

The 380 doesn't lift cargo over 10 hours. The 777 does and provides the opportunity for frequency.

Given the CX spider network...stay with the 777ER as the long haul camel. The 330/350 as the feeder. Leave the freight to the 748 and add some PX to the fleet for destinations that are slot limited like LHR.

Ideal fleet profile in 2020:

A330/340/350 - 50
777ER/300/200 - 50
747PX 800 -10
747FX400/800-20

FWIW
VR-HFX is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 16:23
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,913
Does carrying MZFW for 14.5hrs count as over 10hrs?

The Don
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 20:43
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,013
Hi Don,

I think we covered this before, but what is the payload at MZFW for an EK A380? How much of that payload was cargo? I realize they are not all the same, so maybe the newer ones please.

Also, what was the burn for that 14.5 hour flight at MZFW?

Cheers!

Last edited by cxorcist; 26th Jun 2013 at 20:45.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 26th Jun 2013, 21:18
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,384
VCLXI,

Were they full of pax and volume limited on freight?

I can assure you that most of the time staff are waiting up to 3 days to get to LHR and back. 5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 748's. We need a VLA on LHR, doesn't matter which one although a 747-8i would require a minimum of training costs.
BusyB is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 01:48
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: asia
Age: 48
Posts: 156
MFF between the 350 and 380, who knows, I'm sure Airbus will push for it.

MFF between the 744 and 747-8F is happening already.

The real question right now is if they will try MFF between the 777 and the -8, the chief pilot (s) have been doing it for a while, but doing it with a larger selection/all the Boeing crew is another story.
buggaluggs is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 02:18
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 175
Boeing are sponsoring a MFF 747-777 with the FAA, if this is approved then it opens the door for CAD to approve. However, it's one thing for a chief pilot to do, what about your average pilot who will be struggling for currency on the other type.

Costs will be the determining factor, and as pilots we don't like change maybe we should embrace this and work it to our advantage. Pay/COS etc.
The FUB is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 02:49
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: cloudcuckooland
Posts: 146
The 744/748 is the same type rating. Only a differences course required. If you're current on one you're current on the other. No MFF malarky.

The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i
1200firm is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 02:56
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 2,913
CX,
It would burn about 60t more than a 777 to LHR and 50t more on the return. 17t freight on the long range ones with 489 pax. 19t on the med range ones with 517 pax. Think I showed previously how the extra pax ticket cost covers more than the fuel cost. Unless of course fuel gets to over $4000 per 1000kg.
But if you haven't got the pax base to fill em you wouldn't want to be flying them. ULR flying from the sand pit is being moved from the 777 to the 380 as it makes more money. Our 777s have 54 more seats than yours. They become MTOW limited at 12hrs so are only carrying 45t of revenue to/from the oz east coast and less to LAX.

The Don.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 03:47
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 2,013
Don,

Thx. I do believe CX could fill the A380 at least once per day to LHR, LAX, and JFK (maybe SFO as well). Of course, any airline can fill anything if willing to collapse yields. I think the question for CX is return on investment. I believe CX sees a higher ROI from another A350 or 777 than it does from an A380. Keep in mind that the real price of those two twins is around $150M and the A380 is about $190M. I'm sure CX could get the -8I über cheap since very few carriers seem to want them. So maybe those numbers start to look extremely attractive.

I agree with Busy B that CX needs something bigger, even if only in small numbers (10-12). The -8 makes more sense from a cargo volume perspective and because there would be essentially no training costs for crews and maintenance on the Intercontinental. However, maybe Doric offers CX attractive lease terms such that the A380 makes sense.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 05:15
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: A Marriott somewhere
Posts: 213
Please consider this when using Chinese airlines to compare to others.

Chinese airlines do not need to make a profit. They make money off people like me who operate private airplanes into China. The latest stops we have made in Beijing are up to 50k USD per flight. Part of this charge is actually called an "Airline Compensation Charge", where I have to pay to compensate the Chinese carriers for not carrying these passengers in and out of China.

I flew China Eastern (380) from LAX to Beijing myself a month back. Business class was not even half full. The rest of the plane was about half full.

If you are using Malaysian Airlines as an example of airlines that use the 380 profitably, you may wish to rethink that. Malaysian is basically bankrupt, I would expect to see big changes there shortly. They bought the 380 for the same reason they built a gazillion dollar Formula 1 track. P..nis envy.

That being said, as a passenger I enjoy riding on the 380. It is nice and quiet.
DA50driver is offline  
Old 27th Jun 2013, 07:52
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: HKG
Posts: 1,384
Apologies,

When I said
"5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 748's."

I meant

5 777 flights only gives the same seats as 4 744's.
BusyB is offline  
Old 28th Jun 2013, 13:37
  #55 (permalink)  
LGB
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: -
Posts: 176
Even with 5 flights a day now, they are still all full. Get a 6th LHR flight? Good luck.

Not that the company is required to keep spare seats for ID90, but as long as all flights are as full ... there must be passengers aplenty for larger aircraft.
LGB is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2013, 07:41
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by 1200firm View Post
The 744/748 is the same type rating. Only a differences course required. If you're current on one you're current on the other. No MFF malarky.

The 747 First Class section is unique can never be repeated. Normally ALL cabins need emergency exits both in front & behind. (This is what makes the 777 First Class cabin inferior.) The 747 has been grandfathered in this regard & the First Class section only has exits to the rear. All this from a senior Boeing sales VP. Who knew?
Roll on the 747-8i
As far as I'm aware, the rules have not changed regarding having an exit near each end of the aircraft - I've compared the 1982 rules (to which the 747-400 and 747-8 were certified) with today's FAR 25 regulations and have seen the same clause in both regarding the exit location provisions (having said that though, I'm not an aviation law/certification specialist, so don't rely on what I say).

Current FAR 25 (link here)
§ 25.807 Emergency exits.

<snip>

(f) Location.
(1) Each required passenger emergency exit must be accessible to the passengers and located where it will afford the most effective means of passenger evacuation.

(2) If only one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tailcone or ventral emergency exit, the floor-level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation.

(3) If more than one floor-level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a combination cargo and passenger configuration, at least one floor-level exit must be located in each side near each end of the cabin.
1982 FAR 25 (amendment 25-55 through 59: link here)

Sec. 25.807
Passenger emergency exits.


<snip>

(c) Passenger emergency exits. The prescribed exits need not be diametrically opposite each other nor identical in size and location on both sides. They must be distributed as uniformly as practicable taking into account passenger distribution. If only one floor level exit per side is prescribed, and the airplane does not have a tail cone or ventral emergency exit, the floor level exits must be in the rearward part of the passenger compartment, unless another location affords a more effective means of passenger evacuation. Where more than one floor level exit per side is prescribed, at least one floor level exit per side must be located near each end of the cabin, except that this provision does not apply to combination cargo/passenger configurations. Exits must be provided as follows:

<snip>
Getting back on topic - I don't believe that CX really needs the A380, as it's just too much plane to fill reasonably. The problem is that they really can't spread around their flights to do only one A380 per day, as people will expect consistent quality of service and the subsequent high downtime at the other end of the flight will impact their ability to move around aircraft quickly. Even with projected growth, CX and the A380 won't be able to be flexible enough to move with varying market demands to stay afloat for the next few years.
Qantas94Heavy is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2013, 09:54
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,428
Airbus questions Boeing's certification plan for new widebody 747-8I to use grandfathered data from previous Jumbos

Airbus questions Boeing's certification plan for new widebody 747-8I to use grandfathered data from previous Jumbos
The 747-400 was itself approved as an amendment to the certification of the original 747-100 that was launched in 1966.
According to Leahy, the door configuration in the forward part of the 747 main deck - where passengers in the nose-section have no forward exit option - would also be non-compliant. "You have to have two directions to get out," he says.
All water under the bridge now.
SMOC is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2013, 04:11
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: SE Asia
Posts: 194
Lufthansa orders 36 777-9X, 30 more options

BAM!

We missed the boat on the 380 and the 747-8i.
Ok, fine, they don't want a 4 engine fuel guzzler.
But they're about to miss the boat on the large twin, too ....
freightdog188 is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2013, 07:14
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Here ---> X
Posts: 437
Actually, you can bet your profit share that CX will be buying the 777-9.

They're already pretty involved in the program and have started to pester Boeing by sending a bunch of guys to Seattle to whine about how they want it done.
They just don't like to be the launch customer of anything. It's bitten their hand before...
Yonosoy Marinero is offline  
Old 20th Sep 2013, 07:24
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Krug departure, Merlot transition
Posts: 550
It would appear that, on the passenger side at least, we will be a twin-only airline.
main_dog is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.