B748i or A380 order?
Plus 3 more arriving this year, they're currently sitting on the tarmac in Seattle part of the CX/CA freight rehash.
).I suspect Cathay is looking to ditch most (if not all) of their older 747-400s. Not only are they getting up there in age, they have RB211-524 engines and Rolls hasn't exactly been going out of their way to support those engines (btw I recently saw an ex Cathay passenger 747-400 being apparently scrapped in Moses Lake Washington).
The newer Cathay 747-400F have PW4000 engines (which Pratt will be supporting for a long times since they're the same engine as what's going on the new 767 USAF tankers). Those six airplanes were part of the last batch of 747-400s Boeing built prior to the switchover to the 747-8.
Did Qantas take delivery of the last ERF that has been getting sandblasted for years, that was the plan when they dumped Atlas.
Last edited by tdracer; 4th Nov 2013 at 03:02. Reason: fixed typo
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Few place
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do yiu guys get such a hardon for some silly aeroplanes.
You'll fly em at below market levels of pay, and crap on about how cool it is to fly some bit of tin round the sky.
Who fcuk ing cares.
You'll fly em at below market levels of pay, and crap on about how cool it is to fly some bit of tin round the sky.
Who fcuk ing cares.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monster,
Serious question. What's worse? Guys writing about this stuff on Pprune? Or you getting on here and actually reading it? Or you further wasting your own time and commenting with some negative diatribe?
Don't confuse an interest in the airplanes or the business side of the industry with being willing to accept "below market levels" of pay, etc.
Serious question. What's worse? Guys writing about this stuff on Pprune? Or you getting on here and actually reading it? Or you further wasting your own time and commenting with some negative diatribe?
Don't confuse an interest in the airplanes or the business side of the industry with being willing to accept "below market levels" of pay, etc.
Well some of us Pilots in here actually like Flying and we do take an interest in what piece of Aluminum/ Carbon Fibre we are sitting in for hours on end. Yes as I get older pay becomes the main driver of my interest BUT I still like the job none the less.
787-10 please CX, and I'll retire a happy old fart.....
787-10 please CX, and I'll retire a happy old fart.....
Last edited by nitpicker330; 3rd Nov 2013 at 07:34.
No -8s in the desert as of 29 October
I don't know if it's the same airplane you're referring to, but I believe the last new 747-400F sitting in the desert went to Kalita
1416 in the front, 1419 in the back
Last edited by swh; 4th Nov 2013 at 05:09.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With a requirement for more TCs on the B747 this looks like an increase on training task.
Is this to train future CNs and send them to the Airbus, train the future freighter team or something else? Is the -8i still in the long grass awaiting?
Is this to train future CNs and send them to the Airbus, train the future freighter team or something else? Is the -8i still in the long grass awaiting?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Silberfuchs
That is a very interesting rumour.
I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if it were true. At least the 8i has payload/range capabilities that are less of a compromise.
VLAs are something of a liability, when the going is anything but good. The drying up of orders would corroborate that statement.
Methersgate;
Your last sentence is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. I'm pretty sure you can't magically pull out results from a an airframe with poor economics, in this environment. CX management have made that call. Some times, it will cost them a bit of revenue. However, they aren't holding on to a massive liability when the economic proverbial hits the fan.
Oil prices are only going to trend one way in the long term. Looking outside of aviation, you'll see OPEC stating that $100 a barrel is a minimum going forward. It will get to $150+, and it will put airlines under again.
Look at the carriers using A380s. There are some very nice carriers among them (from a pax perspective), but removing the carriers from the ME - whose accountancy practices that are read through frosted glass at best; and you'll see the majority of them are in huge financial ****. Huge. SG, TG, MS, QF, AF... Notice that these are premium full service carriers. Did they think that passenger experience trumps aircraft economics? It looks that way.
Perhaps it's best summed up as follows;
An A380 could make you more money when conditions are right. However, they will certainly ensure that you lose more money when conditions aren't.
One airline's perspective on the risk will differ from another's. I'm certain that for the longevity of my career, CX has made the correct decision.
CX LHR yield is now breaking company records, time and time again. Enough said.
I absolutely wouldn't be surprised if it were true. At least the 8i has payload/range capabilities that are less of a compromise.
VLAs are something of a liability, when the going is anything but good. The drying up of orders would corroborate that statement.
Methersgate;
Your last sentence is pretty ridiculous, to be honest. I'm pretty sure you can't magically pull out results from a an airframe with poor economics, in this environment. CX management have made that call. Some times, it will cost them a bit of revenue. However, they aren't holding on to a massive liability when the economic proverbial hits the fan.
Oil prices are only going to trend one way in the long term. Looking outside of aviation, you'll see OPEC stating that $100 a barrel is a minimum going forward. It will get to $150+, and it will put airlines under again.
Look at the carriers using A380s. There are some very nice carriers among them (from a pax perspective), but removing the carriers from the ME - whose accountancy practices that are read through frosted glass at best; and you'll see the majority of them are in huge financial ****. Huge. SG, TG, MS, QF, AF... Notice that these are premium full service carriers. Did they think that passenger experience trumps aircraft economics? It looks that way.
Perhaps it's best summed up as follows;
An A380 could make you more money when conditions are right. However, they will certainly ensure that you lose more money when conditions aren't.
One airline's perspective on the risk will differ from another's. I'm certain that for the longevity of my career, CX has made the correct decision.
CX LHR yield is now breaking company records, time and time again. Enough said.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying CX will get them, but...
The V2 (Project Ozark) -8I being certified right now is very compelling for airlines which can't wait for the 777X. The fuel burn is reportedly 2% better than the existing Intercontinentals (which puts it about 1% behind the A380 per seat based on LH configurations), and the tail tank issues are sorted putting the range over 8,000nm.
If an airline needs 400ish seats, long range, decent cargo capability, and real premium passenger appeal; then the -8I is not a bad way to go. It has less capacity risk than the A380, although more than the 77W. Why not lease them for a decade and see if they make sense at least until the 777X shows up?
The V2 (Project Ozark) -8I being certified right now is very compelling for airlines which can't wait for the 777X. The fuel burn is reportedly 2% better than the existing Intercontinentals (which puts it about 1% behind the A380 per seat based on LH configurations), and the tail tank issues are sorted putting the range over 8,000nm.
If an airline needs 400ish seats, long range, decent cargo capability, and real premium passenger appeal; then the -8I is not a bad way to go. It has less capacity risk than the A380, although more than the 77W. Why not lease them for a decade and see if they make sense at least until the 777X shows up?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LoadAir Cargo 747-4HQF(ER), LN 1416, still registered as N797BA. The aircraft I think you are referring to I think is LN 1419, registered to Kalita as N782CK.
1416 in the front, 1419 in the back
1416 in the front, 1419 in the back
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Quite why they are getting a 744F when they are also getting 748Fs is interesting."
... Because they need capacity and very likely got a great price on the older technology -400ERF. I'm sure CX would take an ERF as well if the price was good enough. Both carriers still operate -400s and will continue to so for the foreseeable future. If you don't need the extra capacity of the -8F, the -400ERF is a very cost effective option when you factor in the purchase/lease pricing.
... Because they need capacity and very likely got a great price on the older technology -400ERF. I'm sure CX would take an ERF as well if the price was good enough. Both carriers still operate -400s and will continue to so for the foreseeable future. If you don't need the extra capacity of the -8F, the -400ERF is a very cost effective option when you factor in the purchase/lease pricing.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: hong kong
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And chatting to some Cargolux guys last week they are enjoying something of a resurgence right now and making all their money in South America. Which probably explains the CX attempt to follow suit.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is interesting partly because they do not operate any ERFs and do not operate any planes with that version of engine. They must have got it for a very decent price.
After Cargolux takes l/n 1416 they'll have 747-400Fs powered by Rolls, Pratt (ex Korean BCF), and GE.
I suspect GE made some them some sort of maintenance arrangements for the CF6s to go with all those GEnx-2Bs they're taking on their new 747-8Fs.
BTW, Cathay has two new 747-8Fs sitting in Everett that are planned for delivery before the end of the year, assuming we can get the PIP engine certified
.
The Performance Improvement Package (aka PIP) engine that we hope to certify in the next few weeks is good for 2% fuel burn (I wasn't sure if I could say that, until I saw it in the Everett newspaper
) - Ozark is intended to be on top of that (various weight and drag improvements).
Testing is currently on-going to allow activation of the H-Stab fuel tank. My understanding is that the InterContinentals delivered so far have the H-Stab fuel hardware, just deactivated. It'll be a fairly straightforward kit to reactivate it.
I suspect GE made some them some sort of maintenance arrangements for the CF6s to go with all those GEnx-2Bs they're taking on their new 747-8Fs.
BTW, Cathay has two new 747-8Fs sitting in Everett that are planned for delivery before the end of the year, assuming we can get the PIP engine certified
.The Performance Improvement Package (aka PIP) engine that we hope to certify in the next few weeks is good for 2% fuel burn (I wasn't sure if I could say that, until I saw it in the Everett newspaper
) - Ozark is intended to be on top of that (various weight and drag improvements).Testing is currently on-going to allow activation of the H-Stab fuel tank. My understanding is that the InterContinentals delivered so far have the H-Stab fuel hardware, just deactivated. It'll be a fairly straightforward kit to reactivate it.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's all very interesting, tdracer. Keep it coming please...
Also, curious about Ozark. Are you permitted to say how much additional performance it will bring on top of the GEnx PIP's 2%?
If it is 1% or more, any advantage the A380 has on seat cost is gone. This makes the Intercontinental much more attractive as an airplane with less capacity risk and more cargo capability.
Also, curious about Ozark. Are you permitted to say how much additional performance it will bring on top of the GEnx PIP's 2%?
If it is 1% or more, any advantage the A380 has on seat cost is gone. This makes the Intercontinental much more attractive as an airplane with less capacity risk and more cargo capability.
Actually line number 1416 has just been delivered to Cargolux as LX-ECV. Quite why they are getting a 744F when they are also getting 748Fs is interesting.
The Performance Improvement Package (aka PIP) engine that we hope to certify in the next few weeks is good for 2% fuel burn (I wasn't sure if I could say that, until I saw it in the Everett newspaper ) - Ozark is intended to be on top of that (various weight and drag improvements).
747-8 'Project Ozark'
Did not know that, about time. It will be an expensive airframe to operate considering the D check it will need within 24 months.
I think it would be rather trivial for Cathay to get the CAAC to allow their first D check to be delayed based on the airplane spending it's first six years parked in the desert.
The PIP is less than 2%, and the HST is needed along with the PIP to reach design range (hopefully).
747-8 'Project Ozark'
747-8 'Project Ozark'
cxorcist, I really haven't been following Ozark that close - PIP has been keeping me plenty busy and Ozark doesn't affect me. I think if everything pans out its effectively another 1-2% fuel burn (drag and weight), although some of what I've heard sounded pretty optimistic so if they fall short it wouldn't exactly be surprising
. One thing we did that may pay long term benefit on the Freighter is that we bumped up the max weights by 10,000 lbs so that they could make the original payload guarantees even though the airplane was (about 10k) overweight. Now that we have the benefits of various weight improvements, PIP (definite) and Ozark (perhaps), that could be turned into additional payload.
Over the past few months tdracer has posted fantastic data & info on "Rumours & News" regarding the -8
It's well worth a read.
It's well worth a read.
I've been fairly careful to only post stuff that was 'public knowledge', sure hope I didn't
-up.