A350 maiden flight
 

Nice looking aircraft.

box

There are probably countless technical analysts at airlines around the world all hoping that the A350's fuel burn & performance specs are as aesthetically pleasing as the aircraft itself. It is however, without question, a very good looking airplane.

That would be an Airbus first.

Parabellum,

Good point! The history is not so great, but it is a beautiful jet. Let's hope it performs as good as it looks. I'm looking forward to seeing the -1000 as well. If it is equally well proportioned, CX will have a pair of good looking planes to park next to those new -8Is. :ok:

PS - the new -8I (Ozark) is supposedly performing 1% better than the original brochure specs, and the price is reported to be slightly less than an A350-900.

Cxorcist,

I am Boeing born, through and through, but the -8I is only a pipe dream I'm afraid. The pressure that Boeing is receiving from it's 777 customers to accelerate the 777x must be overwhelming. The 380 is likely here to stay, but I think everything else is going to be bigger and bigger twinjets.

box

I think it is quite ugly to be honest. The nose gear is far too forward and the nose looks like its been punched in the face like it's bigger sister. The winglets look like they have curled up in the sunshine.

Stop teasing the Airbus! They've obviously had enough and can't take it any more!! As safety is our priority, we need our Airbus crews to have no emotional hang ups when on duty. :}

At least we will not have the following conversation.:ok:

"Dear captain I have bad news and some good news...the bad news is that our batteries are on fire! The good news is that they are buring in their titanium box...for now!":{

Frogman,
Only because Airbus learned just in time from Boeing's mistakes and changed them. Not because Airbus worked it out for themselves.:=

Froggy,

FYI - the box is the last of three fixes to the battery system. They separated the cells and insulated them from one another and the potential for thermal expansion of one cell affecting the others. They also tightened the rates at which the batteries can charge or discharge electricity.

I think it is quite likely that the largest 787, the -10X, will become part of the CX fleet as an A330 replacement. It is much lighter weight than the A350-900 (same size) but has less range as well. It's envisioned to be 25% more efficient than the A330-300 on short and medium haul flights (up to about 10-11 hours).

I think the 350 is pretty ugly too, it's lost the Airbus curves in the fuselage, it now has a straight and boring Boeing fuselage instead of the inverted banana of the 330. As was mentioned before the nose gear is too far forward and it's extended too much losing the distinctive front to back slope of the previous Airbus's. Those winglets too look out of place, so in short pretty disappointing for me, modern aircraft might be more efficient but they look pants.

The Cathay A380's will look great!:E

... Only if you like fat chicks! ;)

Nothing wrong with fat chicks!!!:} As long as you don't tell your friends.:cool:

B787 vs A350?

Both are the epitome of current aerodynamic, engine efficiency and performance design for airliners.

One of them will always be better than the other, depending on each of the many missions that are envisaged for airline operations.

Vive la différence!

Flex,

Correct me if I'm wrong (ha... not the 1st & certainly not the last time) but didn't Mr.S or former boss Mr.TT say that the 787 were too small for the CX operation?

And as per the latest 777 newsletter-
"CX are looking very seriously at the 777-X"

b.

787-10 is the same size as the A333 and A359. :ok:

Actually, I think it is a bit bigger than the 333 (80 seats-ish?).

The problem is that its range is significantly (significant in the CX route network sort of way) less than the 350's. So it might be a 333 replacement, but that's it.

Why buy 350s and 787s and 777s, when you can just have 350s and 777s?

Four reasons:

1) it weighs a lot less than the A359 and therefore is much more efficient on short and medium haul flights

2) it is the same type rating as the 777 for pilots (3 day differences course)

3) CX already operates a different version of the GEnx. I imagine there is a significant parts commonality

4) there may come a time when CX decides that the A358/B789 size is something they want for new, smaller markets. The 789 is expected to be much lighter and therefore more efficient than the 358 with similar capacity and range.

The A350's range is still only a figure on a piece of paper:E

So they are going to start a new fleet. With new simulator new office staff and with pilots that can only fly one type of Aircraft. So we will have an Aibus fleet that can CCQ and a 3 boeing fleets. B747-8 B777 and B787...nice dream but not going to happen!!!

Would that same logic apply to the A380?

No Because the A350 and A380 can CCQ.

Airbus are also planning on a common type rating with the A330.

Froggy,

Did you even read my post?

The 777/787 are the same type rating as well. CCQ or whatever you want to call it.

Cxocist...I never read your posts. :E

Then don't reply... You sound stupid.

ohhh touchy!!!:{

There is an approved training pathway (short course) from the 777 to the 787, there is no pathway presently approved form 787 to 777.

The 787 and 777 are not a common type rating like the 757/767 in the US. Ask anyone who works for United.

CX Looking Seriously at 777 x
 

As CX is a serious airline I would hope that whenever there is a new aircraft in the pipeline it would run the numbers to see if it fits CX requirements. There's no point in doing it any other way than seriously!!

Life never changes eh - Boeing v Airbus in the minds of those with little better to do. And yes I have flown both and love both for different reasons.

Parting shot: Barbie Fleet - beautiful body but no brains!!

Oh dear - where's the coffee shop.

cxorcist,

That document supports what I said, there is no common type rating between the 777 and 787 under the FAA system. As I said, talk to any of the United guys and ask what is printed on their licence, it is B-777;B-787. The common type rating between the 757/767 is B-757/B-767. Once trained on B-757, no additional training is required to have the B-767 type rating.

The short course at United from the 777 to 787 is 16 days (around a month). The FAA does not issue a 787/777 type rating, it is 777 and there is 787, no dual rating.

This is essentially the same as a 330/340 CCQ, that is not a common type rating.

Swh,

Read the last sentence of the background paragraph and report back...

Cheers!

Current list of FAA type ratings http://registry.faa.gov/TypeRatings/

See page 2, 787 and 777 are not common type ratings, unlike the 757/767.

Oh, yes. Good find.

I also noticed that the A330 and A340 are different type ratings, and yet CX finds a way to have pilots qualified on both (CCQ).

Is there a reason why this cannot happen between the 777 and 787?

Cheers!

I knew the facts before I posted. I corrected you twice, you still did not believe me.

Yes, as I mentioned also above "This is essentially the same as a 330/340 CCQ, that is not a common type rating."

The A330/A350 is being proposed as a common type rating, see what the regulators have to say.

There is no regulatory reason why pilots cannot fly multiple types concurrently, a number of AOC holders in HKG do this. Even CX has a number of pilots that mixed fleet fly the 747 and 777. It is obviously not cost effective to do so at the moment on a larger scale with the HKCAD requirements as it is with the A330/A340.

SWH - I'm not entirely sure what point you're trying to hash out, but it's somewhat picking at the minutiae of the idea. Call it a "common type", a "CCQ" or "differences", it matters not. The fact is, that if CX got some 787s, I'd bet my house that they would be flown by 777 pilots. Unlike 747-777, or 737-A320 mixed flying, 777-787 training/flying is cost effective. The 787 was built with that in mind.

The reason United has separate 777 and 787 pilots is a different matter altogether.

Common Type - One type rating, one AEP, one PC type, one RT, one LC, landing on one counts for a landing on the other. Like the 777-200/300/300ER.

CCQ/MFF - Two type ratings,one larger AEP, PC alternates between types each time, RT alternates between types, LC alternates between types, landing recency needs to be maintained on each type. Like the A330/A340.

777 to 787 is not a a common type rating with a 3 day differences course as outlined above.