It was also reported by FlightGlobal that CX expects to make a decision between the A380 and 747-8I in mid 2013. It remains interested in the 777X.

I guess a big question with regard to the 787-10 is whether CX goes 8 or 9 abreast in Y Class; many airlines, like UA for example, are going 9 abreast, while more "premium" carriers like BA and NH (on international routes) are going 8 abreastl obviously, on an aircraft that long, that's going to make a significant difference to the aircraft's economics.

The i model? Is that the new one with fuel injection like my 1977 BMW 730i has got?

There is a lurking idiot at all times :ugh:

No, don't be silly. This is a serious discussion. That's the one the iCadets will be flying...

I've not heard any rumors regarding the 8i, just facts based on real data. In summary, the 8i is the worst aircraft in Boeing's inventory.

This saddens me but I'm optimistic that cxorcist will provide data to the contrary.

Wash you mouth out betpump! The words "worst" and "Boeing" are mutually exclusive. :)

STP

STP I hate myself for saying that - I promise. But having spoken with a Lufthansa pilot on the 8i ( a die hard Boeing guy who could be cxorcist himself) he didn't have too many nice things to say about it.

Well if one LH pilot gives the 8I the thumbs down. That does it for me. The Germans are known for the well thought out and rational opinions
The only reason I want the 8I is to avoid 2 months in kitty city converting to the 777. That and the lav in the cockpit. You got to love that.

The beancounters have been trying to get rid of that little luxury for years. Perhaps they'll get their way if CX orders the -8I.

Actually, I agree with the -8 LH pilot in that the pilot/airplane interface (cockpit) has a long way to go. The FMC and ECS systems need fixes desperately. Hopefully, they will come sooner rather than later.

From the company's economic perspective however, the airplane is extremely capable and efficient. A simple archived CFP check reveals that it carries 25-30T more freight than the -400ERF for the same fuel burn. That is approximately 25% more efficient with another few percent still to come from the engines and flight control changes. Granted, the airplane has only 16% more volume, but it is hard to argue with numbers like those.

swh,

I hope your A350 numbers are correct because CX seems to have placed a large bet on them. Based on history though, you'll have to excuse my pessimism. Airbus is well known for OPUD (over promise under deliver).

akerosid,

CX would very likely put PEY into a prospective -10 making 9 abreast EY more likely. Don't like the smaller EY seat? Upgrade to PEY.

I just had an image of somebody struggling for the last few inches of their bench press, as the pilot reacts to a TCAS CLIMB RA!

Where did all the Airbus fans / Boeing naysayers go?

Funny how the thread shuts down when factual data is supplied.

Swh, betpump, anyone... Bueller, Bueller, ... anyone? Crickets, all I hear are crickets chirping.

It's because most of us find the posts from these unpaid publicity consultants doing charity work in aid of the Boeing Company and Airbus Industrie very, very boring.

Very sensible post Silverfuchs. The only point I take issue with is that the 787-10 is unknown in terms of actual performance (paper airplane). While that is technically correct (in fact its production has not even been approved by Boeing's board yet), it is not difficult to extrapolate from the 787-8 which flies today and arrive at very reliable numbers for the -10. That is how the 25% more efficient than the A333 figure is derived. I suppose it's possible that there could be fuselage-extension engineering hiccups along the way, but Boeing will probably work through any of those on the -9 model before the -10 is produced. So the only real questions are when will it be available and how much will it cost.

Dart,

If this is so boring to you, feel free to stop reading, much less posting on the topic. Your attempts to insult are meaningless. I happen to like airplanes and discussing them on this site. Every once in a while I actually learn something, and I hope some of my posts allow others to do the same. Does it matter that I prefer Boeing over Airbus and write accordingly? Not PC enough for you?

I'm sure it's possible to extrapolate 787-10 performance figures from the 787-8 but a couple of things crossed my mind, viz:

I'm not sure the latter quote could be classified as a "hiccup" as it has an impact on employability of the aircraft. That said, I'm sure Boeing will fix it. So it's not only Airbus that makes performance predictions which look great in computer simulations but then turn out to be overly optimistic when the aircraft actually flies.

Discussions such as this one might be interesting for some and boring for others but, at the end of the day, are entirely academic as I venture to suggest that the overwhelming majority of pilots would base their equipment choice (if they were to have one) on the route network and the lifestyle it affords, not the manufacturer.

If Boeing were to extrapolate the 787-10 performance from the 787-8, do you think the extrapolation of the delay in delivery should be linear or exponential? :)

STP

Where did all the Boeing fans / Airbus naysayers go?

Funny how the thread shuts down when the odd "inconvenient truth" is supplied.

cxorcist, anyone... Bueller, Bueller, ... anyone? Grillons, tout ce que j'entends c'est le gazouillis des grillons. :)

STP

STP-

Your use of frog makes me want to puke!!!

Seriously, what's to argue with in your post? Yes, the 787 was late. Boeing learned a lot of difficult and expensive lessons wrt production on the 787. Fortunately for them they have a great airplane with a very bright future (especially considering that the -9/-10 are sure to outsell the smallest version being produced now), but they have a lot of ground to make up. The production rate is up to 5 per month after only 1 year. By contrast, the A380 is only being produced at a rate of 3 per month after 5 years in service.

WRT the 747-8I tail tank deactivation, it is really a non-event. LF does not need it for any of the routes that it flies the aircraft on, and you are correct that it will be corrected well before any customers do require it. CX would need it for JFK and LAX/SFO-HKG in the winter were it to buy or lease them.

Looks like CX has picked up a few more -8Fs

Hey leave the frogs out of this!

Cherrs Frogman1484