B748i or A380 order?
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MOON
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you've pax'd on a A380 you'd know how incredible it is.
There is a massive difference in passenger experience vs B747/777 and A380.
No debate. Its quieter, roomy, and a nicer ride.
There is a massive difference in passenger experience vs B747/777 and A380.
No debate. Its quieter, roomy, and a nicer ride.
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Here
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually ETOPS, I'll have to disagree with you. Having flown BA recently I would have to say the level of service was the equal of CX if not better! The quality of food was superior, the cabin staff friendly and attentive and obsessed with "the customer". I'm not saying that CX is bad but you'll be surprised by how much BA has improved.
Guest
Posts: n/a
threethirty
Certainly it sounds like your experience was more positive than mine on BA. Admittedly, it's been a couple of years since I flew with them. Hopefully an increase in their service standards will cause CX to re-align their definition of premium service. After all, CX are generally much more expensive to book with.
Twotigers, I've used A380s many times. It is quieter, and some operators have a stand-up bar. That's terrific! Otherwise, I personally don't get the hype. I don't find it more roomy, unless I'm looking sideways. After all, it's a two deck aircraft in an airframe that isn't twice as deep. I'm not disagreeing with you though, it's certainly nicer. How much so is obviously subjective, which determines whether it's worth forgoing your 35 options a week on CX. Clearly, the CX consensus - which I happen to agree with - is that passengers (or at least the yield worthy ones) will favour the frequency options.
I think that an A380 order would paint CX into a corner. Great when they're full (of decent yield payload), otherwise a huge gamble, and not worth the risk. It's all well and good pointing out increasing market share, missing the boat etc... but conservative judgement is something that's done CX well since it's inception. Rapid expansions and risk taking is something that has killed off a huge number of airlines. If it weren't for government aid in many countries, that number would be much, much greater.
I'm not in any way a CX apologist, and I'd like them to increase their customer appeal. I think the way to do this is to reinstate proper salt and pepper shakers, and use product and service to lure the punters. I think CX hard product is excellent, but the darling has always been service. Look at where it once was. This is the area where CX need to pour resources. Having the cabin ceiling 1 foot higher in a 380 is always going to be overshadowed by attentive, caring crew.
I have a couple of friends who are very prolific first and business fliers, largely on CX. Top-tier membership and all that guff. Their comments are very closely aligned; the product is great, as are frequencies. The service, whilst still good, is certainly diminishing.
These are the types of passengers CX relies upon. Frequent business travellers in premium cabins. They couldn't care less about the A/C type. They do want to be somewhat pampered for the hundreds of thousands of USD they spend each year though.
This is a relatively cheap fix, and one that would cement high yield bums on seats. It just takes the right attitude to implement.
Twotigers, I've used A380s many times. It is quieter, and some operators have a stand-up bar. That's terrific! Otherwise, I personally don't get the hype. I don't find it more roomy, unless I'm looking sideways. After all, it's a two deck aircraft in an airframe that isn't twice as deep. I'm not disagreeing with you though, it's certainly nicer. How much so is obviously subjective, which determines whether it's worth forgoing your 35 options a week on CX. Clearly, the CX consensus - which I happen to agree with - is that passengers (or at least the yield worthy ones) will favour the frequency options.
I think that an A380 order would paint CX into a corner. Great when they're full (of decent yield payload), otherwise a huge gamble, and not worth the risk. It's all well and good pointing out increasing market share, missing the boat etc... but conservative judgement is something that's done CX well since it's inception. Rapid expansions and risk taking is something that has killed off a huge number of airlines. If it weren't for government aid in many countries, that number would be much, much greater.
I'm not in any way a CX apologist, and I'd like them to increase their customer appeal. I think the way to do this is to reinstate proper salt and pepper shakers, and use product and service to lure the punters. I think CX hard product is excellent, but the darling has always been service. Look at where it once was. This is the area where CX need to pour resources. Having the cabin ceiling 1 foot higher in a 380 is always going to be overshadowed by attentive, caring crew.
I have a couple of friends who are very prolific first and business fliers, largely on CX. Top-tier membership and all that guff. Their comments are very closely aligned; the product is great, as are frequencies. The service, whilst still good, is certainly diminishing.
These are the types of passengers CX relies upon. Frequent business travellers in premium cabins. They couldn't care less about the A/C type. They do want to be somewhat pampered for the hundreds of thousands of USD they spend each year though.
This is a relatively cheap fix, and one that would cement high yield bums on seats. It just takes the right attitude to implement.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kowloon
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, cxorsist, I don't agree with you agreeing with etops.
What a load of absolute bollocks! Twenty (or so) years ago we were flying one flight per day and BA had two. Now we fly a massive five flights per day, and God knows how many more other airlines fly "our" route; and you think that's good!?
"Decent" would have been taking every slot that was available, not handing them to our competitors.
CX have done a decent job of getting it's requisite share of the HKG-LHR market
"Decent" would have been taking every slot that was available, not handing them to our competitors.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry, what? Are you honestly that stupid? God probably does know how many other airlines fly 'our' route. So do many others.
BA - 2 x Daily
VS - 1 x Daily
CX - 5 x Daily
Let's have a look. Let's even pretend that all the aircraft used are the same, because it seems simplification is a trait which you'll value.
Twenty years ago, BA operated two flights a day. CX operated one. During this era, BA had a 66.6% market share. CX had a 33.3% market share.
Now, BA have a 25% market share. VS have a 12.5% market share. That's (25+12.5) 37.5% of the market which CX don't have. 100-37.5=62.5
Using such simplification, CX have a 62.5% share of the market. By my maths, I would suggest that 62.5 is a bigger number than 33.3, therefore I would make the assumption that CX market share on the HKG-LHR city pair has INCREASED. In fact, it's nearly doubled. Do I think thats good? I do. Now, factor in aircraft size, and we'll learn that BA have a larger market share than 25%, and CX less than 62.5%.
Now, I know you're an all-important pilot and everything, but for a moment, consider how stupid one question can make you sound. Folks far above your pay grade, at a very high commercial and political level negotiate for the rights to operate international flights. Such permissions come with value-reciprocity between the two nations.
If you think that CX could have kept on growing HKG-LHR city pairs without IATA and government bodies allowing other relevant airlines a fair crack at it, you're extremely ignorant of the process involved. Let's face it, BA are the only real competition on the route. CX are not going to be given carte-blanche to launch more and more flights on the route without BA being given reciprocal rights.
In a slot-limited destination such as LHR, as other airlines fail to operate the route profitably, CX or anyone else have the opportunity to try to snag it. For example, 237/239 which was ANZs loss.
Having watched airlines come and go on the route, I'd say CX is reasonably dominant of the market.
BA - 2 x Daily
VS - 1 x Daily
CX - 5 x Daily
Let's have a look. Let's even pretend that all the aircraft used are the same, because it seems simplification is a trait which you'll value.
Twenty years ago, BA operated two flights a day. CX operated one. During this era, BA had a 66.6% market share. CX had a 33.3% market share.
Now, BA have a 25% market share. VS have a 12.5% market share. That's (25+12.5) 37.5% of the market which CX don't have. 100-37.5=62.5
Using such simplification, CX have a 62.5% share of the market. By my maths, I would suggest that 62.5 is a bigger number than 33.3, therefore I would make the assumption that CX market share on the HKG-LHR city pair has INCREASED. In fact, it's nearly doubled. Do I think thats good? I do. Now, factor in aircraft size, and we'll learn that BA have a larger market share than 25%, and CX less than 62.5%.
Now, I know you're an all-important pilot and everything, but for a moment, consider how stupid one question can make you sound. Folks far above your pay grade, at a very high commercial and political level negotiate for the rights to operate international flights. Such permissions come with value-reciprocity between the two nations.
If you think that CX could have kept on growing HKG-LHR city pairs without IATA and government bodies allowing other relevant airlines a fair crack at it, you're extremely ignorant of the process involved. Let's face it, BA are the only real competition on the route. CX are not going to be given carte-blanche to launch more and more flights on the route without BA being given reciprocal rights.
In a slot-limited destination such as LHR, as other airlines fail to operate the route profitably, CX or anyone else have the opportunity to try to snag it. For example, 237/239 which was ANZs loss.
Having watched airlines come and go on the route, I'd say CX is reasonably dominant of the market.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (293) is weighing as many as 25 of the aircraft in a transaction that probably would come before the Dubai event, one of the people said. The expo runs Nov. 17-21 and is often a showcase for long-haul jets like the 777.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I look forward to flying on the A-380, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer a relatively loud constant wind noise to drown out all the other non-constant noises such as people talking, babies etc.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MOON
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noise Cancelling Headsets can.. try BOSE.
and I just booked travel to Europe in Nov... on BA A380, in Business.
Since our own flights to the UK are "slim"...
The muppets running this circus have no clue, when their own staff are booking other carriers and paying a premium.
and I just booked travel to Europe in Nov... on BA A380, in Business.
Since our own flights to the UK are "slim"...
The muppets running this circus have no clue, when their own staff are booking other carriers and paying a premium.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd bet those J class seats on BA were cheaper than CX. Would you really pay more to be on the A380? I don't think so.
So who is it with "no clue" - BA for operating the no cargo carrying super jumbo and selling cheap seats or CX charging more and carrying 25T cargo in the 777 belly under your feet?
Do the math... It's not that hard to figure out that running an airline is more complicated than choosing your favorite jumbo jet.
So who is it with "no clue" - BA for operating the no cargo carrying super jumbo and selling cheap seats or CX charging more and carrying 25T cargo in the 777 belly under your feet?
Do the math... It's not that hard to figure out that running an airline is more complicated than choosing your favorite jumbo jet.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd bet those J class seats on BA were cheaper than CX.
Would you really pay more to be on the A380? I don't think so.
So who is it with "no clue" - BA for operating the no cargo carrying super jumbo and selling cheap seats or CX charging more and carrying 25T cargo in the 777 belly under your feet?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yellow Pen,
Really? You sure about that?
I just looked online and found for a LHR J class return (same dates) the CX seats cost between $57-66K while the BA seats on the A380 were as low as $43K.
If you have different information, let me know...
Oh, and you can take that 25T cargo in the 777 bellies and multiply that by 5 which is the number of CX flights to LHR each day.
Looks to me like CX is kicking the cr@p out of BA on this route in terms of both pax and cargo.
Maybe it is a different story in first class. Anecdotal evidence that CX whales are not happy with CX F class on 777s.
Should CX build its fleet around F class? I'm guessing that would be unwise since they are not a huge part of the revenue equation percentage-wise.
Really? You sure about that?
I just looked online and found for a LHR J class return (same dates) the CX seats cost between $57-66K while the BA seats on the A380 were as low as $43K.
If you have different information, let me know...
Oh, and you can take that 25T cargo in the 777 bellies and multiply that by 5 which is the number of CX flights to LHR each day.
Looks to me like CX is kicking the cr@p out of BA on this route in terms of both pax and cargo.
Maybe it is a different story in first class. Anecdotal evidence that CX whales are not happy with CX F class on 777s.
Should CX build its fleet around F class? I'm guessing that would be unwise since they are not a huge part of the revenue equation percentage-wise.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I'm quite sure cxorcist, with good info from the horses mouth to back it up. As Asteroid mentions, BA have a sale on at the moment which may be affecting the fares on the website, but as most of their J revenue on the route comes from corporate contracts the website tells barely any of the story.
BA didn't have to put an A380 on the route. They have plenty of other routes they could employ the aircraft on, but the fact that they decided to put a 25% increase in capacity on the HKG wouldn't support the notion that they were having the crap kicked out of them, either on pax or cargo (don't forget BA have the GSS contracted B748F out of HKG in addition to belly cargo on the 773 and 380).
LHR-HKG is about yield, not volume. Five years ago there were a lot more seats between the two on a daily basis and nobody was making much money as everybody fought for market share. There are just three operators left now that the fifth-freedom carriers have been pushed out and capacity constraint has helped the economics of the route. If CX want to bump up volumes on the route then that could be down to any number of things:
Genuinely making money on the route.
Trying to take market share and drive a competitor off.
Chasing volume over yield, Emirates-style.
Having nowhere else to employ spare capacity.
There's a lot more to it than saying "We've got five flights a day so we're winning".
BA didn't have to put an A380 on the route. They have plenty of other routes they could employ the aircraft on, but the fact that they decided to put a 25% increase in capacity on the HKG wouldn't support the notion that they were having the crap kicked out of them, either on pax or cargo (don't forget BA have the GSS contracted B748F out of HKG in addition to belly cargo on the 773 and 380).
LHR-HKG is about yield, not volume. Five years ago there were a lot more seats between the two on a daily basis and nobody was making much money as everybody fought for market share. There are just three operators left now that the fifth-freedom carriers have been pushed out and capacity constraint has helped the economics of the route. If CX want to bump up volumes on the route then that could be down to any number of things:
Genuinely making money on the route.
Trying to take market share and drive a competitor off.
Chasing volume over yield, Emirates-style.
Having nowhere else to employ spare capacity.
There's a lot more to it than saying "We've got five flights a day so we're winning".
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: one country, one system
Age: 55
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dunno Gents..
Nobody of you, including me, really has inside information. This is more complex than many of you think imho. It takes more than browsing the web and counting seats. No offence.
Nobody of you, including me, really has inside information. This is more complex than many of you think imho. It takes more than browsing the web and counting seats. No offence.
SMOC,
Can you advise, how many -400F's does CX currently still have, and do you know the time frame for their retirement (if there is one). Also, your news of additional orders for the -8, would these be replacements for the -400's, could this mean an increase in the current total freighter numbers, or could they be going to CA for that CX/CA Freight co-op in Shanghai?
Thanks,
b.
Can you advise, how many -400F's does CX currently still have, and do you know the time frame for their retirement (if there is one). Also, your news of additional orders for the -8, would these be replacements for the -400's, could this mean an increase in the current total freighter numbers, or could they be going to CA for that CX/CA Freight co-op in Shanghai?
Thanks,
b.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Woodbridge, Suffolk
Age: 71
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm only a passenger.
"The intelligent mis-use of aeroplanes" used to be CX-speak for using bigger aircraft than other people would have considered for a given route. It worked extremely well, along with "All CX planes are tarts" (they sleep away from home) and "the only frequency is daily, to pay for the spare engine".
I don't doubt that CX can provide a superior premium travel experience and yield-manage the back of the bus - that has been CX's essential management trick for a long time.
I very much hope to see a big CX order for 380s; if no such order is forthcoming many pax, like me, will conclude that CX management are not what they used to be and have bottled it.
"The intelligent mis-use of aeroplanes" used to be CX-speak for using bigger aircraft than other people would have considered for a given route. It worked extremely well, along with "All CX planes are tarts" (they sleep away from home) and "the only frequency is daily, to pay for the spare engine".
I don't doubt that CX can provide a superior premium travel experience and yield-manage the back of the bus - that has been CX's essential management trick for a long time.
I very much hope to see a big CX order for 380s; if no such order is forthcoming many pax, like me, will conclude that CX management are not what they used to be and have bottled it.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can you advise, how many -400F's does CX currently still have, and do you know the time frame for their retirement (if there is one). Also, your news of additional orders for the -8, would these be replacements for the -400's, could this mean an increase in the current total freighter numbers, or could they be going to CA for that CX/CA Freight co-op in Shanghai?
1 parked last month plus another to go at some stage, old rollers, I think they'd like to ditch them ASAP.
6 X 400ERF (keeping still newish).
10 X -8Fs
Plus 3 more arriving this year, they're currently sitting on the tarmac in Seattle part of the CX/CA freight rehash.
Plus unknown number of extra -8Fs, as the Boeing production line slip up shows #14, probably replacements for the -400Fs so maybe an order of 4-5?
I think the CX/CA thing has gone quiet, they're going down the 777F route selling the BCFs back to Boeing.
How many of the reject -8Fs are sitting still in Marana ?
Did Qantas take delivery of the last ERF that has been getting sandblasted for years, that was the plan when they dumped Atlas.
Did Qantas take delivery of the last ERF that has been getting sandblasted for years, that was the plan when they dumped Atlas.