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

Goodbye to the shuttle

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.

Goodbye to the shuttle

Old 10th Sep 2019, 21:50
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 109
Goodbye to the shuttle

In the spring of next year the JFK shuttle will be no more.....

It also appears that there will be no more A50 to YVR and first class service to one of CX's prime destinations.
Thunderbird4 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2019, 05:20
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Originally Posted by Thunderbird4 View Post
In the spring of next year the JFK shuttle will be no more.....

It also appears that there will be no more A50 to YVR and first class service to one of CX's prime destinations.
I'm just happy they're bringing the A350-1000 to YYZ.
Foxdeux is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2019, 04:58
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by Foxdeux View Post
I'm just happy they're bringing the A350-1000 to YYZ.
Me too! The passenger experience on the A50 is amazing. What a great jet!
cxorcist is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2019, 14:32
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: H.K
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by Foxdeux View Post
I'm just happy they're bringing the A350-1000 to YYZ.
Ya will be great during fall and spring but good luck in the Summer heat and the Winter contaminated ops. Nothing like bringing a load of paxs but not their bags which happens frequently in EWR and IAD already. The 350 is a great 12 hour airplane and as most airlines including CX realized to late that the 1000 numbers are bogus and is the reason most airlines with orders tried to convert the 1000 orders to the 900. The 1000 might be a great airplane when the NEO version comes out.
Samsonite is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2019, 18:06
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by Samsonite View Post
Ya will be great during fall and spring but good luck in the Summer heat and the Winter contaminated ops. Nothing like bringing a load of paxs but not their bags which happens frequently in EWR and IAD already. The 350 is a great 12 hour airplane and as most airlines including CX realized to late that the 1000 numbers are bogus and is the reason most airlines with orders tried to convert the 1000 orders to the 900. The 1000 might be a great airplane when the NEO version comes out.
NEO version? It wont be with RR XWB engines. Those are tapped out at 97K. Maybe the RR UltraFan??? That seems to be a long ways off...
cxorcist is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2019, 01:03
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 224
The 1000 at 316T does fine with only 97K/side, just as Im sure the -9X will do fine with only 105K/side at 351T ....
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2019, 14:38
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 1,849
Originally Posted by Veruka Salt View Post
The 1000 at 316T does fine with only 97K/side, just as Im sure the -9X will do fine with only 105K/side at 351T ....
Really??? Is that why CX is seeking RNP 0.11 engine out performance procedures from HK to get more A350 payload capabilities? HK is a sea level airport and not exceptionally hot compared to ME3 airports.

It is pretty obvious that A350 could use more thrust and/or more lift from the wings. The -9X will have a lot more lift from its wing than the 77W, enabling lesser thrust on takeoff.

Im not saying A350 is not an efficient aircraft, it is, but no one is impressed when EWR passenger baggage has to be driven up to JFK and hauled by the 777. Its not a true 15 hour aircraft in CXs current pax seating configuration.
cxorcist is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 02:50
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,111
The bags only have to go to JFK when they shut down the long runway for works. The rest of the time the A350 can carry a full,load out of EWR.
Frogman1484 is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 02:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: NV USA
Posts: 209
What do you like about the lack of overhead bins or personnel air vents in biz class?
cappt is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 07:07
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Hong Kong, SAR.
Posts: 539
Why is Airbus always the 'weak' airplane? Always trouble with high elevation in the summer, can only a full two out of the three fuel, pax, cargo..
and to top it off, its always a surprise apparently that the glossy folders don't accurately describe the actual performance once the aircraft is on the line. You'd think that the purchasing team would know by now...
Oasis is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 07:36
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The sky
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by Frogman1484 View Post
The bags only have to go to JFK when they shut down the long runway for works. The rest of the time the A350 can carry a full,load out of EWR.
Thats a lie. Any wind, heat, rain, ice, mels will result in limit. Key word is full load, which is typically not planned for there.
Natca is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 07:51
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 665
Originally Posted by Oasis View Post
Why is Airbus always the 'weak' airplane? Always trouble with high elevation in the summer, can only a full two out of the three fuel, pax, cargo..
and to top it off, its always a surprise apparently that the glossy folders don't accurately describe the actual performance once the aircraft is on the line. You'd think that the purchasing team would know by now...
There's only so much under-power that even a great wing can overcome.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 09:51
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 224
Thats a lie. Any wind, heat, rain, ice, mels will result in limit. Key word is full load, which is typically not planned for there.
Wot ...... like any other FAR 25/CS 25 certified twin, including the 777?
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 10:04
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 224
Get yer hand off it Darryl!

Why is Airbus always the 'weak' airplane? Always trouble with high elevation in the summer, can only a full two out of the three fuel, pax, cargo..
and to top it off, its always a surprise apparently that the glossy folders don't accurately describe the actual performance once the aircraft is on the line. You'd think that the purchasing team would know by now...
15 hr sector. 777ER vs. A35K. Round figures so Boeing pilots can understand it:

777ER: 351T MTOW - 130T Fuel Required - 169T BW = Available payload of 52T, a 16T reduction from max.

A35K: 316T MTOW - 102T Fuel Required - 149T BW = Available payload of 65T, a 9T reduction from max.

Have flown both A & B brands, & have no bone to pick with either of them, but that took < 5 mins on IntraCX to work out. Hence why the Airbus has been taking most of the LH flying this past 3 years.

Last edited by Veruka Salt; 14th Sep 2019 at 20:34.
Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 12:41
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The sky
Posts: 165
Originally Posted by Veruka Salt View Post


15 hr sector. 777ER vs. A35K. Round figures so Boeing pilots can understand it:

777ER: 351T MTOW - 130T Fuel Required - 169T BW = Available payload of 52T, a 16T reduction from max.

A35K: 316T MTOW - 102T Fuel Required - 149T BW = Available payload of 59T, a 16T reduction from max.

Have flown both A & B brands, & have no bone to pick with either of them, but that took < 5 mins on IntraCX to work out. Hence why the Airbus has been taking most of the LH flying this past 3 years.
A359 much less.
Natca is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 13:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 224
Yes, but the A359 is 76T lighter than the 773ER, yet carries only 10T less payload over a 15 hr sector, whilst burning 25% less gas.

275T MTOW - 95T Fuel Required - 138T BW = 42T available payload.


Veruka Salt is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 13:09
  #17 (permalink)  
csd
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Soon to go home
Posts: 50
Originally Posted by Veruka Salt View Post
A35K: 316T MTOW - 102T Fuel Required - 149T BW = Available payload of 59T, a 16T reduction from max.
This Boeing pilot is having problems with that math.

Regards

csd
csd is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 20:34
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: in denial
Posts: 224
Fair call csd
Veruka Salt is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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