SMOC,

Where did this info come from?

If true, it is bad news for Boeing as they just lost 3 of AC's 5 Intercontinental orders and converted them to freighters. No doubt CX got a great deal on them. I wonder if the ACC debacle has anything to do with this. That little experiment has been hemorrhaging cash since its inception and hurting CX Cargo in the process.

This is also a very revealing transaction in that it says bad things about the Chinese economy or the -8 as a passenger plane or both. It reinforces what I've been saying about CX really liking the -8F.

This does not reflect a loss of 747-8i orders from Air China but a transfer of three 747-8Fs from Air China Cargo to CX. They were already designated as freighters. The 748i order should be unaffected.
What is not know is whether these are destined for CX or possibly for CX but with an onward lease to ACC.

Charming!

I didn't know that Norwegian.se had the 747-8i. I trust the rest of your research on the -8i is more accurate than that for the ICAO code for Lufthansa. :)

The production rate for the similarly sized A330 is running at about 9 per month, albeit after a significant time in service. What's the production rate of the 747-8, a similar sized aircraft to the A380? About 2 a month is the number I've read. Pommes avec des pommes ou des pommes avec des oranges? :)

STP

Surely you mean IATA code :E

You spotted my deliberate error - ahem... :O

STP

Typical Cathay... Words matter more than substance.

Boeing does have 4 aircraft on the line in Everett and one in Charleston, it is however not delivering 5 per month off the production line. They have built 117 787s, delivered 38, 35 of them this year. 35/11 is a bit less than three a month in my book. By my count they have 23 aircraft undergoing rework before they can be delivered, some of them been sitting outside for well over a year, one in San Antonio the rest in Everett. 6 of the 117 airframes built look like they are going to be scrapped, 4 of them are the flight test aircraft.

Do you include yourself in this criticism? The substance of any argument is the words in which it is couched. If words are chosen poorly then the argument loses substance.

Anyway, Cathay won't buy the 787 - it's too ugly (as is the A380). :)

STP

STP,

No, I don't. I chose my words carefully for the most part. My argument was not lessened by the incorrect use of LF instead of LH. I meant the big German operator who flies -8Is, LuFtHansa. I'm pretty sure everyone knew who I meant except those who are particular about Flaps vs Flap. Are you one of those? Perhaps those on the Airbus should use Volets or Volet to be more precise. Oui?

PS: Both the A380 and the 787 will look a lot better stretched, but neither of them will ever hold a candle to the 747-8 in the looks department.

Volets et Volet

Are these pronounced differently?:hmm:

When you say:

did you mean "I choose my words carefully for the most part"? :)

Personally, I don't think you can have it both ways - either you choose your words carefully or you don't. In future though, if you're not choosing you words carefully when telling everyone how much better Boeing products are than Airbus, could your put some sort of discalimer, for example;

*** warning, words not chosen carefully hence my argument might be flawed ***

Personally, I prefer Vol 8. :)

STP

I "chose" my words carefully in the previous posts, and I intend to "choose" my words carefully in the future. Aforementioned past tense was intentional. "For the most part" was a reference to my LF / LH miscue which wasn't really a word "choice" at all. It was an acronym (or IATA code) choice which reflected a decision based on time management knowing full well that if it were wrong readers would still understand its intended meaning.

Your desire to critique grammar and word choice indicates a hint of shallowness that I can only assume comes from a lack of substance and/or creativity in your life. It is my sincere hope that you are not in C&T at CX. Regardless, I hope you check your pretentious upbringing at the door. Such nonsense has no place on a flightdeck. It only serves to create conflict and destroy crew efficacy.

PS - Reread your last post. Notice how I did not critique your spelling or word choice because I know what you meant and don't like to make issues from nothing. Pointing out such errors only makes one appear petty and trivial, not educated and intelligent.

Oh dear, this is starting to get ugly...

Oh, come on cxorcist, surely you must know by now that I'm pulling your leg - how many smileys do I have to use for goodness sake? However, enough's enough but I look forward to next time.

STP

sparring
 

Jeez, STP and Cxorcist..its time you guys either came out of anonymous city and continued your sparring at a non descript bar down route somewhere!!! ...and btw, from my perspective, a stretched 380 would aesthetically blow the socks off the rest of the comp!!!

Stretched A380
 

Yes, because a bigger dugong is far better looking than a small dugong... :}

http://www.justanotherhacker.com/dugong.jpg

Maindog, you just made my day!!

box

-8's are almost a certainty. BA will be flying 380's to HK very soon. CX can't compete with 777's

Um excuse me
 

Quote (something like):But neither of them will ever hold a candle to the 747-8 in the looks department
Are you joking??
Oh Please!
It's the "old queen of the skies" in a new paint job for *^%* sake.

Sometimes the classics are timeless. Just like 70's porn.

Why can't CX compete with a different aircraft type? Seat costs will not be all that different. The 77W carried far more freight and unless BA has large suites in a first class++ config, it doesn't matter too much to the individual passenger what plane they are in...its not like they are going to be using the on-board jacuzzi, bowling alley or running track very much. With 4 flights a day to choose from vs BA's two, I think CX will do just fine. Granted however that there will be some non-frequent travellers who fly the 380 for the experience once or twice.

P.s. 70s porn is crap.

A pox on your blasphemous soul sir!!!

...but the A380s ASKs are not that much different to the 77W's. Possibly slightly better without factoring cargo into the equation. If they sell 100 seats cheaply, they are still going to have to make up the difference by selling the other seats at a profit. They may gain market share in terms of numbers of they might not steal any 'quality' passengers.

geh065,

You seem to be a man of reason. Can you let us know the cargo carrying differences between the 777 and the 380?

The Don

Sorry I dont have the exact figures but it has been something discussed before on these forums and others and the conclusion was basically that the 77W carries a lot more freight. Something to do with the huge fuel tanks in the fuselage of the A380 and maybe the crew rest being down there too.

I see. So you don't know.

For info the B777 does have a center Fuel tank which, as you note, would reduce carrying capability. The 380 carries its fuel in the wing and THS only.

Just checking. :E

The Don

77W can carry 44 LD3 containers. The A380 carries 38. That's a 16% difference. Factor in that the A380 has to carry 200 more pax worth of bags, or 40% more. So I think it is safe to say that the 77W has quite a bit more revenue cargo potential.

From Boeing website for B773Er

7,120 cu ft (201.6 cu m)
includes up to eight pallets, 20 LD-3
container

From Airbus website for A380

Freight LD3 capacity underfloor 38 LD3 Max pallet number underfloor 13 Bulk hold volume 505 ft³ Total volume 6 554 ft³ (containers+bulk)
Just sayin.

The Don

Don,

Come on man! 8 pallets and 20 LD3s are the same as 44 LD3s. Did you ever notice how cargo pallets are quite a bit larger than LD3 containers?

Boeing represents the cargo area this way to show customers that after loading all the passenger bags, there is still a lot of room, more than 50%, for palletized cargo.

Now imagine how many LD3s the A380 has to load and how much space is left over once that is done. Simply put, assuming full pax, the 77W has the potential to carry a lot more cargo.

Yawn!!!!!:O

Yawn?
 

Make that double yawn