Cathay mulls 787-10 to replace A330s
 

Cathay mulls 787-10 to replace A330s

It's a no-brainer really. More range / payload, 25% better economics than A333, lower cabin altitude, and higher humidity. That said, CX has a tendency to be the launch customer for problematic Airbus models (A346) and not the game changer Boeings models (773ER). Maybe it's a Euro thing...

After being launch customer for the RR powered 744, A333 and 777 CX vowed never to go first again. The A346's were leased from ILFC to try them out and were not meant to be near the front of the queue but the A346 launch customer (VS??) deferred a lot of their deliveries pushing the CX aircraft near to the front much to Engineering's chagrin.

cxorcist what is the cabin altitude on an A330 ?

Don't forget the A340-200s for which CX was an early lease customer.
Despite not wanting to launch any new plane again, we were one of the very first to get 748Fs and hence got all the heavyweight ones. We will be one of the first to get both the A350-900 and -1000 so
I think any economic benefit promised on paper is outweighing the desire not to be an early customer.

A discount on purchase price is a big part of it as well.

Heard of several rumours floating around about a -8i as well.

swh,

My understanding of the A330 is that the cabin altitude varies between 7-8K feet depending on flight duration. The 787 is supposed to be around 6K. What's the point of your question?

They actually are normally below 6000 ft on longer flights. On short sectors the diff is decreased with a higher altitude however the benefits of a lower cabin altitude are not there on short sectors. The lower cabin altitudes that Boeing refer to was against their other products like you fly.

Likewise with the increased cabin humidity, it has been available for some time. Air Mauritius was the first airline to have it in service on their A340s, it is now available on just about everything from 737/A320s jets to 777s. It is not unique to the 787.

Swh,

That's all well and good, but most airlines do not use the humidity function because it has a negative corrosive effect on the metal tubes over time. So the 787 and eventually the A350 will be the only aircraft widely employing this benefit.

The bigger issue is passenger experience. I think it would be hard to make the case that the A330 offers anywhere close to the service potential of a 787. In addition to the aforementioned designs, the larger windows and ride have to be worth something.

I'm not saying the 787 is better (or worse) than an A350 will be, but it certainly kicks the pants off an A330. That said, the comments about purchase price are legitimate, and I'm sure Airbus will do what it has to do with the price to keep selling A330s... just as Boeing has with the 767.

Yes please bring em on :ok:


Fingers crossed.

It is the exact opposite, it is a two part system. One part is a zonal drying system which prevents condensation in the aircraft (reduces weight and corrosion), and the other a humidifier which provides humidified fresh air to the cabin.

Lufthansa has it installed in their A380s, it is also found on 747, 767, 777, A300, A310, A330, A340 and most BBJ/VIP types. Cost is the main reason it is not installed.

A couple of airlines are looking at giving their passengers stick on covers for the windows as the electronic dimming still lets in light. The windows do not seem to line up with the seat rows in economy, some gymnastics would be needed to adjust the brightness.

I do not know the numbers off hand for the 787-10 and A330 like you seem to. It is a large airframe about 5 m longer than a 777-200/A330-300, or 1 m longer than a A350-900. The 787-10 put Boeing off the 777X project for another decade, it does about 90% of the range/payload of the 777-8X.

The fuselage however is not as wide as the 777/A350 making 9 across in economy a tight fit with narrow seats. Put the A330/777/A350 seats in the 787, it means 8 across in economy.

Considering all of the older A330s are going to KA, they might be the ones looking at being replaced. The 777-10 planned entry into service will be around 2018, probably 2020 before CX/KA could get some.

Passenger comfort and bigger windows are not the selling points of the 787. They are marketing branding-gimmic points. Airlines could care less about passenger comfort and bigger windows. Passengers will not notice the difference, and will not pay a dollar more for that (unnoticeable) difference.

Yes thats right...what happened to the A380 gym and waterfall?:confused:

Boeing will probably price the 787-10 right to get back in the game with Cathay (losing ground as more A350-1000s are ordered). And weren't the latest A350-1000s ordered to replace the existing 777-300ER fleet going forward?

Despite similar fuselage size, the 350-1000 will not carry anywhere near the payload HKG-JFK or LAX-HKG that the 777-300ER does. So it is not a 777-300ER replacement on missions over approximately 7000 air miles. Hence the reason CX is touting it for Europe. I think the only Pacific crossings you might see it on are YVR or SEA. The range numbers listed for the 1000 are very misleading because it won't carry the 40-50T payload that the 777 does over those distances.

Don't believe me, run the numbers yourself. For 350-1000:

MTOW ~ 302T
BOW ~ 160T (in theory)
Trip Fuel ~ 20% better than -300ER (in theory)

Use these and compare to a MTOW -300ER to JFK...
Looks like Airbus has come up short on wing and/or powerplant.

I believe this is why Boeing is not rushing to develop the 777X. The threat is not real on true ULH missions. For shorter missions (<6000nm), the 787-10 is a very attractive aircraft next to the A359/1000. So what you have is a hypothetical Airbus sandwiched between two very real Boeing types.

I don't really mind which one I fly, as long as I don't have to play with that silly steering wheel-yoke-thing where the table should go...

Your data is out of date. The A350 now has a design rage of 8400 nm compared to 7900 nm for the 777-300ER, take around 15% off those numbers to get the range with the CX planning rules.

The A350 MTOW is 308 t, the relative trip cost is around 20% lower, fuel is around 25% lower (fuel is around 60% of the DOC). The A350 is around 20 million more expensive per airframe to buy.

The 777-300ER and A350 have the same wing span, the A350 however has around 30 m^2 more wing area. The A350 wing is variable geometry, it changes shape during cruise to minimize drag. The L/D of the A350 is around 30-40% better than the 777-300ER.

The A350 thrust is 97 klb per side. The 777-9X which will have a wing with a similar L/D as the A350, however 36t higher MTOW, only has 99.5 klb of thrust from the GE9X engine per side.

Another comparison, the thrust to weight ratio of the A350 is better than the 787 and 777-9X, all have wings with L/D ratios in excess of 20:1.

Organophosphate free cabin air is most definitely going to figure in the decision by many airlines to order the 787. I can only assume Cathay is aware of this design feature. At present the only aircraft that employs bleed free technology.

I hope CX doesn't buy the 787. The last thing we need is to take over all those crappy airbus patterns!!!!