Wide body rumours (CX)
 

Let the speculating begin....





Cathay Pacific Evaluating Widebody Needs

Well the 747-8 looks the coolest.....but the accountants will go with A380.

It's down to how much money we can consistantly make with a reliable Airframe.

Boeing 747-8i is the clear winner on both counts.....

Not if they know anything about Crit Points, Mandatory Fuel, RFF Category; so, yeah we'll probably get them :ok:

Pax comfort wise..380 knocks the socks off the 8i....

Serious question - have you travelled as a passenger on both?

STP

Indeed I have questioning one...380 is both very quiet, at least in EY and pressurisation seems to be less noticeable. One has to ask..why is the 380 so popular?...and its not just a matter of accounting.

CX already operates the 747-8.

No pilot cross training.
No new mechanic quals.
Already own all the servicing equipment.

Of course the accountants will want the 380. Hopefully someone with a schmick of operatonal knowledge will actually be at the table.

If we get either, I would have thought it'll come down to the whole package - engineering support, whether there's a simulator thrown in, engineering and aircrew courses and so on. Oh, and obviously the price. If the A380 package is more competitive, we'll get the A380. If it's the other way, then we'll get the 747-8i. Then again, I'm not an accountant.

If the decision were to be based solely on looks then the 747-8i would win hands down. The A380, sadly, has created a new category; the VUA - Very Ugly Aircraft :(

Pucka, thanks for the answer.

STP

Who'll fly them?
 

It's down to the accountants for sure.

The buzz is that another operator canceled/delayed an -8i order, so CX was straight in there with an ultra low offer.

More to the point, regardless of which type we get, considering the current crew shortage, who the f&%k is going to fly them????

That's east circuit boy
 

CX is looking into a cross-crew-fleet MFFCCQ
whereby you can operate the supers only, but either type.

Just like current 330/340

And 3 crew ops as well. So with 3 pilots with both ratings each, it effectively means 6 pilots, so the crew shortage is solved straight away.

Simple maths.

I figure the Supermen will put their hands up.

Ass

Is that trim tank fuel being unusable on the 8i still an issue? I'd assume that any operator considering a choice between the two types are looking for range and passenger numbers. I'd say the 380 beats the 8i by a long shot. Not to mention that ride comfort out of pilot and passenger point of view is unbeatable.

The financial numbers will win.

For me the great relief of not transitting PX terminals may be clouding my fast receding memory BUT the 8 is a winner.

Commercially I have a flown the 707, Tristar, 747-200/400, 777, 330/340 and the 747-800.

And the winner is 747/8

If Slosar doesn't go with Lufthansa and choose this as the next heavy lifter then he should stop pretending to be a Brit.

Subsonic,

What is the full fuel of an A380 and 747-8 without a stab tank?

What is the still air range of each starting at MTOW?

Honest questions. Thanks.

But why is Lufthansa the only carrier to order the -8 when every one else has gone for the 380, then look at SIA, if the aircraft was so bad why have they just ordered 20 more, I agree with the comment about airframes at the end of their life, the numbers stack up for the 380 even now when you are comparing the -8 with its new generation engines when the 380 is still running old generation engines, imagine the savings when they put the gen x engines onto the 380, which I'm sure will happen once they have got the 350 launched.

Good evening everyone,

I have seen a forecast from Boeing to activate the 747-8i tail tank late in 2013 / early 2014 (connect some plumbing, adjust flight control software, and - if I am not mistaken - some rework of the outboard pylons / pylon fairings at least on the older aircraft).

Stay tuned... :-)

Regards, J.V.

Question 1. : Of all the A380 operators (current A380 operators Singapore Airlines, Emirates, Qantas, Air France, Lufthansa, Korean Air, China Southern, Malaysia Airlines and Thai Airways.) who operates the a/c exclusivelyon ULH sectors?
As far as I know only QF and as a result of Crit points, mand fuel and RFF enroute (as white none correctly alluded) they land in LAX with approx 50 T sloshing around in the tanks.

Question 2: What is the cost of 50T of "dead weight" in fuel burn for the next 20 years of projected operation, or for that matter 50T loss of payload?

Question 3: If to be used on HKG NAM routes, on an eastbound sector what is the next airport after Chitose that could be filed as a Critical point pair?

Question 4: If it is to be used on EUR route structure, on a west bound sector what is the next critical point pair after Hong Kong?

Question 5: Is CX looking for an ULH a/c ?

I call BS on the 50T landing fuel into LAX. The 380 is a Cat F aircraft, the same as the 748. Any Cat F airfield will do. But don't let facts get in the way of a good argument.

The Don

Don, I agree the 50T issue has become a bit of folk law.
Will ring a QF buddy and see if he can advise.

744F - 163T
744 - 173T
748 - 184T without stab, 194T with.

A380 - 252T

Clearly inaccurate. The last ERA on the way to LA from the West / South West is HNL. There is nothing else, and HNL is able to handle the 380. There is no other non-380 suitable airport in between which would require one type to carry more than another. Sure, some of the smaller Hawaiian airports are a bit closer, but not by 50Ts, we are talking a couple tons at max.

The only real issue I could see is the cargo carrying capacity. You have the same cargo carrying space but two full decks of passengers. this clearly means less space for all the bags, and even less space for revenue cargo. But cargo has weakened substantially, they cry about it every Friday.

The only aircraft that are carrying less freight are the freighters. Every time a 777 takes off on long haul, it's got several tons along with all those bags. Not unusual to have 15 to 17 tons from N.A.

You have it all wrong...The typical decision model is to ask every department their input and then go with the cheapest product!:ok:

Actually a few other airlines have ordered the 747-8i like Korean and Air China as well as (I believe) Arik Air of Nigeria although I doubt they will ever take delivery.

Our own CEO has stated that he personally wonders about SQ's strategy of buying so many A380s and said words to the effect of "I wonder if he (SQ's CEO) regrets buying so many A380s."

What about EK. I guess they are wrong too!:ugh:

Emirates have a different strategy to SQ so they can't really be compared in the same way. I don't think he meant to say that everyone regrets buying A380s....just SQ.

He can't regret it, SIA just ordered more

The only airline that regrets buying the A380 is QF. Then again they think the 777 is the wrong aircraft for them!

Maybe HKG express might also fall in this camp!

...and the geniuses running the QANTAS group also ordered the 787 :hmm:.

So: what's it to be for CX? The warmed-over Boeing that no-one else wants (so must be going real cheap) but doesn't have the passenger appeal, or the 'Dugong', popular with the 'punters', but reputedly doesn't have the payload/range for CX, and can't carry the freight?

As much as I am an Airbus fan, I find the words 'cheap' and 'Cathay Pacific' synonymous, and my bet's on the Boeing. On the face of aggressive orders for the 380 from SQ and the middle east, CX have probably missed the boat on any cheap offerings or early introduction into service for the Dugong.

Anyhoo, if a previous post is correct, J.S. seems to know what's good for other airlines, so I'm sure he'll make the right decision for CX...won't he?

the only regrets in QF for the '80 is from the rusted on 744 guys that are holding on too tight. The Flying Vagina (ugly on the outside but bloody comfortable inside) is incredibly popular with the punters, so much so they are making our 744 interiors look the same and marketing it as the 'a380 experience', on a 747... :rolleyes:
depending on the route taken, usually about 17-18t o/head LAX, usual arrival weights, ~11t/hr holding for that.
Newly config'd ac have nearly 500 seats with many premium, you just have to fill em... (which lately we've been doing)
Yes, ops are pretty restrained by many airfields unable to accommodate but that's not too much of a problem for our little airline only flying to a handful of destinations :{

SIA have ordered 5 additional A380s, not 20.

They ordered 20 A350s at the same time.

One question might be, how many A350s might Airbus throw in to sweeten the deal?

Hmmm,

so let's see. That will be...count 'em:
A330 (no replacement as yet, and a true workhorse)
A340 For the next coupla' years at least, (Dammit!)until the:
A350 (One day....)
B777 (no replacement as yet, also a true workhorse)
B747 400 pax and freight for the next coupla' years at least, they will still have to keep some running until the freight operation is at full 'dash eight and triple seven size, and a VLA is chosen and up to strength.
B747-8 freighters
...and now an A380 fleet of some minimum size to justify its set up/engineering costs et al...? (I'm told a minimum of 10 airframes to justify, but I'm happy to be corrected)
So...
7 types, effectively, short term, settling down to maybe 4 or 5.

I know there will be some phasing out and overlap, so that fleet size won't be permanent, but still...an awful lot of extra load on engineering and training for this little old carrier.

I just can't see CX running that many incongruent types. (Ansett anyone?)To that end, I would've thought the B747-8i was a shoe-in, for all the reasons mentioned on this thread.

Which is NOT to say I believe it is the best long term solution to the capacity/slot problems of the future, but I think the build slots on the A380 pretty much belong to EK for the forseeable future, and CX just don't like spending money on big aeroplanes if they can help it. (We didn't get our first B747 until 1979!) Especially when we've already said it won't quite do what we want it to in terms of freight and range. Management want the MK2 version, but I think that is a long way off...

Interesting times. I, for one, await the evaluation and final choice, if there is one, with much interest. Either way, sidestick or yoke, I'll fly it!

Regardless of the numbers regarding 747-8i vs A380 vx 777x, I think the wrong question is being asked here.

The main legacy carriers in SE Asia (our competition) and Emirates are using A380. Passengers do like them. To the uneducated, the A380 is the new 747 flying. The major airlines want to be seen flying the newest and the best because that does attract passengers,

Can Cathay Pacific afford NOT to have an A380?

Where are you going to park them?
 

I am lead to believe that HKIA only has a few gates capable of handling the A380 which raises the question of where they'll park in HK..?

Passengers are attracted by how much the ticket price is. Most pax couldn't tell the difference between aircraft if you handed them a picture.

What bm330 wrote is exactly right. Most passengers don't know one airplane from another. Many of the frequent flyers / corporate customers paying high fares do note the difference however. I've heard there have been complaints about the 777 on the LHR route. Many of the 1st class whales will only fly on the -400. It is hard to beat walking onboard and turning left to an exclusive and private space. Similarly, business class upstairs (despite higher noise levels) has an exclusive feel to it that passengers like.

I'm sure the A380 is a sweet ride, and there is no doubt passengers love it. But the -8 is a very nice ride as well. There is no question in my mind that a well done interior on the -8I would have no trouble competing with an A380 both in terms of passenger appeal and economics for CX.

Ultimately, the notion that CX will end up choosing A380s seems highly unlikely at this stage. This is not to say it couldn't happen in the future, but for now the down side risks on the A380 are significant. There is very little risk for CX buying the -8I. The logistics are already set up, and the airline knows it can deploy them profitably within the current route structure / marketplace.

stick with 777s, CX simply can not afford A380.

Just curious .... What is nearest diversion alternative to HK that can accept A380 ?

VMMC is not a planned alternate for the -8 at the moment.

Well I don't know about the others, but VMMC cannot be filed as a -8 alternate although it can take them in an emergency. So I find it unlikely that VMMC can be filed as an A380 alternate. Where are you getting your information?