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!!!!

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