Goodbye to the shuttle
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: my desk
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It also appears that there will be no more A50 to YVR and first class service to one of CX's prime destinations.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Earth
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
It also appears that there will be no more A50 to YVR and first class service to one of CX's prime destinations.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: H.K
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Polar Route
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I’m 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. It’s not a true 15 hour aircraft in CX’s current pax seating configuration.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: the land of chocolate
Posts: 440
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The sky
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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...
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...
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.
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...
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...
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.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: The sky
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
275T MTOW - 95T Fuel Required - 138T BW = 42T available payload.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: home
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
