It is a Rumour network after all....
A350 is 10 ft longer than an A330 and 40 shorter than a B777. Probably same capacity as well as they'll be shoved in like sardines as usual.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@744drv You are absolutely correct regarding their Scheduled Reporting Times will be based on the Flight Crew Reporting Time (handy for cases where they start at 0750 and we start at 0810). However this additional reporting time is included in their overall total of Duty Hours. So they are still doing a longer FDP ex HKG no? Or have I been interpreting this wrong and their additional "total of Duty Hours" will only apply to their 60 in 7, 105 in 14 and so on? Interestingly ISD OPS A makes no reference to this 20 minutes, and only has reporting time will be STD-60 or as may be notified to the crew member.
@swh Yes, a quick look at the DME flight. DEP 1655 and ARR 0310, thus TTL 1015. In my sleep deprived effort to get back on local time, I should have said Flight Duty Period and not Block Time. On the way to DME the FO is rostered RQ because the Flight Duty Period is greater than 11 hours. So you need to Extend the FDP. The easiest way to get around not having a bunk is to change the sign on time. But that isn't going to happen.
@swh Yes, a quick look at the DME flight. DEP 1655 and ARR 0310, thus TTL 1015. In my sleep deprived effort to get back on local time, I should have said Flight Duty Period and not Block Time. On the way to DME the FO is rostered RQ because the Flight Duty Period is greater than 11 hours. So you need to Extend the FDP. The easiest way to get around not having a bunk is to change the sign on time. But that isn't going to happen.
On the way to DME the FO is rostered RQ because the Flight Duty Period is greater than 11 hours. So you need to Extend the FDP. The easiest way to get around not having a bunk is to change the sign on time. But that isn't going to happen.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@swh I am well aware of the 1/3 in a seat and 1/2 in a bunk rules. I enjoyed the 330 long enough to experience the wonderfully comfortable regional business class seat on many a night. 
As you know CN and FO need 3 hours each to extend the FDP by 1 hour. On the DME flight the FDP is 11:25 with a flying time of around 9:40. The way some guys would run it: The SO would get the first hour or so (until the meal service is completed). The CN then takes 3 hours. Followed by the FO and his 3 hours. Then the SO can have the rest of the night off.
You alluded to the flight being "leg stretch", but it isn't on the way over. I didn't say you need a bunk, I just said the FO was rostered RQ and that without a bunk you will need to burn out the SO.
So yes the 772 can easily do the flight, but it won't be a fun night for the SO.
I have to agree 100% with Curtain Rod on the whole burning out the SO philosophy. It needs to go. If a crew member is unable to complete the flight, as acting crew, and not positioning, within the limits of the AFTLs, then they should not be doing the flight.
As you know CN and FO need 3 hours each to extend the FDP by 1 hour. On the DME flight the FDP is 11:25 with a flying time of around 9:40. The way some guys would run it: The SO would get the first hour or so (until the meal service is completed). The CN then takes 3 hours. Followed by the FO and his 3 hours. Then the SO can have the rest of the night off.
You alluded to the flight being "leg stretch", but it isn't on the way over. I didn't say you need a bunk, I just said the FO was rostered RQ and that without a bunk you will need to burn out the SO.
So yes the 772 can easily do the flight, but it won't be a fun night for the SO.
I have to agree 100% with Curtain Rod on the whole burning out the SO philosophy. It needs to go. If a crew member is unable to complete the flight, as acting crew, and not positioning, within the limits of the AFTLs, then they should not be doing the flight.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So rumour from FCO ground staff.... Airbus to loose FCO in Jan 16.
I have heard CDG will go as well, but not from as reliable source.
That leaves the A340 with AKL and the rice bowl.
I have heard CDG will go as well, but not from as reliable source.
That leaves the A340 with AKL and the rice bowl.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: nfa
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once a day, someone from the pilot group should get to walk in to Rostering and another in to CC and pick anyone at random and tell them their shift has been either delayed, extended, or even though their shift is over, they can't go home for an indeterminate period of time.
It could be a lottery where everyone from the newest S/O to the grumpiest STC gets a chance to swing the hammer. How long until more efficient Rostering practices are adopted?
Have to have a rule that Managers could only be picked five or six times in a row and then they would need suitable recovery time - see Table Z.
It could be a lottery where everyone from the newest S/O to the grumpiest STC gets a chance to swing the hammer. How long until more efficient Rostering practices are adopted?
Have to have a rule that Managers could only be picked five or six times in a row and then they would need suitable recovery time - see Table Z.
Yep sounds like fun until you grow up and realise these poor sods only get paid $10K month and only get 4 weeks leave ( maybe less? )
Don't shoot the poor pricks running a system THEY didn't create.
Don't shoot the poor pricks running a system THEY didn't create.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Smogsville
Posts: 1,424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Update at 0200GMT 17JUL14
Cathay Pacific is gradually phasing out Airbus A340-300 operations on European routes, as the airline begins updating Winter 2014/15 schedule, effective 26OCT14.
Hong Kong – Paris CDG A340-300 service on CX279/278 operates until 25OCT14. Service will be resumed as 3-class 777-300ER from 10JAN15
CX261 HKG0005 – 0620CDG 77W D
CX279 HKG0950 – 1705CDG 77W 146
CX260 CDG1225 – 0655+1HKG 77W D
CX278 CDG1955 – 1500+1HKG 77W 146
CX261/260 operates with 4-class 777-300ER aircraft
Hong Kong – Rome eff 02JAN15 3-class Boeing 777-300ER replaces A340-300
CX293 HKG0010 – 0630FCO 77W x247
CX292 FCO1225 – 0650+1HKG 77W 5
CX292 FCO1240 – 0650+1HKG 77W 136
A340-300 aircraft to continue operates service to Moscow for the time being. Airline Route previously reported CX’s Amsterdam service will switch from A340-300 to 3-class 777-300ER from 01NOV14.
Cathay Pacific is gradually phasing out Airbus A340-300 operations on European routes, as the airline begins updating Winter 2014/15 schedule, effective 26OCT14.
Hong Kong – Paris CDG A340-300 service on CX279/278 operates until 25OCT14. Service will be resumed as 3-class 777-300ER from 10JAN15
CX261 HKG0005 – 0620CDG 77W D
CX279 HKG0950 – 1705CDG 77W 146
CX260 CDG1225 – 0655+1HKG 77W D
CX278 CDG1955 – 1500+1HKG 77W 146
CX261/260 operates with 4-class 777-300ER aircraft
Hong Kong – Rome eff 02JAN15 3-class Boeing 777-300ER replaces A340-300
CX293 HKG0010 – 0630FCO 77W x247
CX292 FCO1225 – 0650+1HKG 77W 5
CX292 FCO1240 – 0650+1HKG 77W 136
A340-300 aircraft to continue operates service to Moscow for the time being. Airline Route previously reported CX’s Amsterdam service will switch from A340-300 to 3-class 777-300ER from 01NOV14.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: az
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SFO and JNB are already gone in September. Only regionals for the passenger bird (I.e. AKL is a pipe dream). Obviously, the aircraft interior does not meet the current branding for longer flights..... which will also be the 340 downfall, as it's not worth upgrading.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It has not been unusual for the 744 to operate the second flight to AKL in the summer months. So maybe for that service. But doubt you will see it take over year round.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dart,
"Notwithstanding a Tupperware airliner too small for CX and A350s coming anyway..."
Actually, 787-10 is larger than the A330 (Ceo or Neo) for carying both passengers and cargo. It will have more range and burn less fuel than A330neo on all sector lengths. I think CX may well be interested in acquiring some around 2020. It appears the technology that has been so troublesome for the "Tupperware airliner" early on is settling and proving its worth in terms of efficiency. Note how the 787-9 for ANZ is underweight and had pain-free test program. No doubt CX will be watching closely as ANZ and other start line operations.
"Notwithstanding a Tupperware airliner too small for CX and A350s coming anyway..."
Actually, 787-10 is larger than the A330 (Ceo or Neo) for carying both passengers and cargo. It will have more range and burn less fuel than A330neo on all sector lengths. I think CX may well be interested in acquiring some around 2020. It appears the technology that has been so troublesome for the "Tupperware airliner" early on is settling and proving its worth in terms of efficiency. Note how the 787-9 for ANZ is underweight and had pain-free test program. No doubt CX will be watching closely as ANZ and other start line operations.
Hey redneck,
We get it, you are American and think CX should only buy American aircraft.
The 787-9 empty weight increased over 10 metric tonnes during its development, the 1600 pounds is not even 10% of the weight increase.
787-10 range at the basic MTOW (242.7) is 6300 nm using Boeing rules, the entry level A330-900 is 7000 nm using the same rules. Airbus lists the range of the A330-900 at 6200 nm using their rules. On list price the the A330-900 is around 30 million dollars less using Boeing rules (green aircraft).
The engine on the A330-900 is based on the 787-10 engine, it is an iteration more advanced.
ANZ has stated their 787-9s cannot do the pacific routes westbound due to range shortfall, and their are not considering the 787-10 at all due to range, they are looking to the 777X/A350.
Air New Zealand considers Boeing 777X vs Airbus A350 - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller
We get it, you are American and think CX should only buy American aircraft.
The 787-9 empty weight increased over 10 metric tonnes during its development, the 1600 pounds is not even 10% of the weight increase.
787-10 range at the basic MTOW (242.7) is 6300 nm using Boeing rules, the entry level A330-900 is 7000 nm using the same rules. Airbus lists the range of the A330-900 at 6200 nm using their rules. On list price the the A330-900 is around 30 million dollars less using Boeing rules (green aircraft).
The engine on the A330-900 is based on the 787-10 engine, it is an iteration more advanced.
ANZ has stated their 787-9s cannot do the pacific routes westbound due to range shortfall, and their are not considering the 787-10 at all due to range, they are looking to the 777X/A350.
Air New Zealand considers Boeing 777X vs Airbus A350 - Flights | hotels | frequent flyer | business class - Australian Business Traveller
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My previous post was written to clarify that I believe CX is seriously considering the 787-10 as an A330 replacement and that it is not too small as it is in fact larger than the A333.
Not trying to start another Boeing vs Airbus debate...
Not trying to start another Boeing vs Airbus debate...
My previous post was written to clarify that I believe CX is seriously considering the 787-10 as an A330 replacement and that it is not too small as it is in fact larger than the A333.
The first question, do they need a 777-200 size aircraft to replace the A330-300 fleet (they are for the A340-300s) ?
The second question, why would they order two aircraft of the same size i.e. A350-900 and 787-10 ? What are the operational advantages adding an additional type with a small fleet of 787-10s with all the disadvantages of a new type (spares, maintenance, training, simulator, crew, rostering)?
The third question, if CX are still taking deliveries of new A330s in 2014/15, 22 A350-900s in 2015/16, and 26 A350-1000s in 2018/19/20 when would CX be looking at needing a replacement for the A330-300, and what would they need ? The A350s on order could easy cover the replacement of the A340s, 777-200s, and 777-300s and probably also some of the older A330-300s. The current fleet average for the 777 and A330 fleets is around 7 years, if they dispose of the oldest A330s 1 for 1 as new A330s are delivered this year and next the fleet average will drop to around 6 years in 2015, that is still very young.
The fourth question, when could CX get delivery slots of 787-9s or 787-10s, and when does this match when they would need the replacement aircraft ? Boeing is still well behind on the 787 delivery schedule, the ANZ 787-9 delivery was almost 4 years late.
If they need additional capacity, it would seem logical to convert existing A350 options, and move A330s to KA to decrease their A330 fleet age (almost 15 years average, compared to around 7 years at CX), and dispose of their older A330s. It would then be a question of what fleet would KA need to replace the A330s, and that would probably be for delivery slots in 5-10 years.
I would have thought the next purchase decision to be made would be what to do with the KA A320/A321 fleet, they would probably need new deliveries in the next 3 years.
