The point being CX doesn't use the closest alternate therefore has to flight plan for extra fuel, thus the same problem for the A380 or possibly worse seeing pax are involved.

But in the usual way of CX they'll discover this problem after the A/C arrive.:E

Typical, EK have had these damn machines for 3 years now but we're still bitching and fighting and hypothecating about damn alternates. Just ask somebody in Emirates what they use for HKG. We'll never get the A380 anyway, we'll end up getting clapped out 747-8's and lose ground to all the others.

Looking at it (hopefully) objectively, it seems on the surface that the current variant of the 380 is a good "10 hour" aircraft, in that any destination further away than 10 hrs starts to run into limitations.

I would guess that 90% of EK's destinations are within 10 hrs of DXB, hence their big fleet of 380s. Same for SQ, most of their 380 destinations are with 10hrs of SIN.

I would guess that the sort of destinations CX are considering for the 380 or -8i are probably a little more than 10 hrs (LHR, Nth Am)

What is the optimum/maximum unlimited range of the -8i? Who knows.

What will be the optimum/maximum unlimited range of newer variants of the 380? Who knows.

EK flies the 380 on daily 14 hour (+) ULR flights and manage to fill them up with hardly a seat left open:

DXB - SYD
DXB - MEL
DXB - JFK
DXB - YYV (not daily due to Canadian restrictions)

Emirates received their first A380 in July 2008. At the moment the Emirates A380 fleet stands at 31. There will be 17 A380 deliveries to Emirates between January 2013 and December 2013.

It's a good aircraft. CX would be foolish not to seriously consider this type above the 8i.

Emirates has a drastically different business model and route structure from CX. Emirates is a hub and spoke carrier throughout the eastern hemisphere with some N&S America services. CX is an O&D airline with the hub being a regional connection point, but the primary traffic being to/from Hong Kong. It's easier to fill an A380 when connecting traffic between 6 continents. CX does not do this to the same extent. This is not a aircraft size issue, but a geographic limitation.

Another major difference is cargo revenues. CX relies much more on belly cargo as a significant proportion of revenue than does Emirates. Whether it is correct or not, CX does not think the A380 offers sufficient belly cargo with a full load of passengers. I've heard this straight from the Director of Cargo's lips. Of course, he is not known for being the most honest person, but it sounds reasonable. Two decks of passengers produces a lot more baggage containers than does a single deck or even a 747. A stretch version of the A380 does nothing to change this.

The third reason CX seems unlikely to operate the A380 is the airline's high frequency model. Rather than try to convince you, please refer to the CEO's comments about the 5th daily LHR service on another FH thread. It's not rocket science. CX benefits hugely from offering multiple daily flights to all its major destinations for corporate and walk-up passengers. It also helps generate express cargo revenues.

All of this to say nothing of the cost side of the equation? CX is probably the most cost-conscience airline in the world. As such, it's hard to imagine them setting up full infrastructure for yet another aircraft type, especially when a viable (if not better) option is already set-up. The risks associated with running unfilled A380s around are massive. It's so much easier to just cut a frequency during a downturn than to have A380 capacity running around (or sitting around) unfilled draining the coffers.

Not sure its fair to compare the 748 with the 380, as they seem to be for different markets. The 362 seats LH has on its 748 would suggest it would be useful as a 773ER replacement on flights over 10hrs where the 773 becomes limited.

EK 380s will carry 66T (499 seats on this one, DOW on newer ones can be 1t lighter) for 14hrs on the 569t MTOW ones, or 74T (520 seats on this one, newer DOWs also lighter) for 10hrs on the 510T MTOW. Its not uncommon to be lifting max zero fuel wait to and from JFK, SYD and MEL for the heavy weight ones and over 70Ts out of LHR for the light weight ones.

If you want to carry 500 people in a three class config there is only one aeroplane available, if you only need to carry 300 to 360 you would go for the Boeings.

The Don

Smart post, Don. Probably no room on PPrune for that sort of behaviour!!



From the another thread dealing with the 5th service to LHR, Ben Sandilands says this:

How many extra seats would 4 daily A350s bring?

The one that makes least sense!:ok:

Lots of -8 slots available favoring some quick deliveries?

Boeing warns about unclaimed 747-8 production slots

...but it is such a great airplane...! I wonder if the 380 has the same issue?

Airbus didnt seem too concerned last year!

Industry sources suggest Boeing's aggressive marketing of the 747-8I has been hampering Airbus's efforts to achieve better pricing on new A380 deals. Leahy denies this. "Not at all," he said. "If you give away a dog, it's still a dog."

I just think that if the airlines love it as much as our Pprune boeing fans, then it should be flying of the shelves...excuse the pun!

As someone who has time on type, the 747-8 is a gem. It's the 744 with grunt.:ok:

Is it really that good? Perhaps you could share some of that time on type experience with us so we can have a better understanding of why it would be so much better than the 380.

And an annoyingly placed hand mike!!!

To answer some questions above I also have some experience on the 380/Sarah Jessica Parker and having flown other Boeing's as well as the 330 I can say that it is the Mutts Knutts. As Don alluded to earlier we regularly lift max payload both on ULR and LR sectors and on our last HKG sector we didn't have a spare seat onboard.

To answer the fuel question we do not use Macau, however Guangzhou is the normal alternate and if the situation dictates we can carry enough fuel in excess for BKK, SIN et al.

Don't get me wrong the 777 does have it's uses in EK, the Keralan travelling community love it.....:ok:

Eau,

Do you mind sharing what the empty weights (BOW) of EK's A380s are? Can you determine from your load sheets how much in the belly holds are pax/crew bags vs cargo on one of those full flights? Does EK typically run the A380s full? How do the load factors compare to other aircraft types in the EK fleet? Very curious...

Cheers,
CXorcist

CX,

DOWs are around the 300T mark, some newer ones done to 297T. Other figures are TOW 569T, ZFW 366T, MLW 391T or TOW 510T, ZFW 373, MLW 395T.

Loads always seem full, but then so does most of the flights over the whole network. We only get PAX weight on the load sheet, this does not include bags. But office dewellers plan on 120kg per seat as they say this takes into account M,F,C and premium seat extra luggage.

Its all a bit academic though, as there is no other aeroplane to compare it to, as nothing else carts around 500 pax in a three class config.

the Don

So let me get this right, the A380 weighs 300T? My God, that is a huge number! All that to carry 65-70T. The 777-300ER regularly carries 50T, yet it only weighs 170T-ish. So to put this into perspective, the MZFW of the A380 is as high as 23% revenue. The MZFW 777 is up to 30% revenue. That is a big difference. Granted, the 777 weight has a higher percentage of cargo. Is that worth more or less than a higher percentage passenger load? I suppose it depends on the airline and the specific route. Given CX's perpencity towards frequency and cargo, it's not hard to figure out why the Swires have been lukewarm on Airbus' super jumbo.