Emirates will have 100 A380 and we can't even order 14 -8I's
 

Let alone their 150 B777x vs our 21.

How come we are central to the worlds biggest Economy and 30% owned by its government and about 50% of our aircraft orders are replacements.

Does this make sense?

This company needs to reward innovation and develop into some new markets and fill all the slots in HK.

Yes I know we're in the game for making money and not pax carrying blah. Blah..

But surely this is being abit too conservative ?

Debate!

I wonder what our net growth is by 2025 is vs Emirates?

CX BY 2024
Currently 140 +93 less about 53 + replacements = net about 180 (28%)

EMIRATES BY 2025
Currently 253 + 150 +(50 options ) + 50 + 6 A380 - 46 replacements = net 413 ~ 450 (60~70%)

Interesting..

Why would anyone want to order as much as a single -8I, when there are far better options available from both Boeing and Airbus?

Agreed. Why bother with the -8? Perhaps a few on a lease may be on their way as an interim measure.

Conservatism has looked after CX well over the years. Yes, it's boring from the outside, but over-expansion and chasing market share has killed off vast numbers of airlines.

Cost control is also another big element in CX business outlook. Yes, frustrating and penny-pinching on the front line, but in terms of long-term rationale, they know they have the lions share of the HKG market without having to run the risk of flying empty A380s around in the next downturn.

They know they can make more money, but at the risk of losing a lot more, too.

Despite our opinions, the top brass at CX are very well versed in the financial side of things. They've been around a great deal longer than the Middle-East crowd, and are ensuring that they will be around in generations to come. Potentially, they may have lost out at times, but have played it safe. Very much the CX way.

Betting the farm on the A380, lovely as it is from a pax perspective, leaves you well and truly vulnerable to being caught with your pants down during a downturn. Yes, perhaps they can make a lot of money, but are a huge gamble and liability. Very much the Dubai way. Just take a look at how the place faired during the downturn.

Different asset write-off rules may also make different aircraft more or less attractive to different airlines. I have no idea about the rules for CX vs EK as far as assets go but having so many A380s owned by them is going to make it very hard to sell them all at a decent price when they're done with them. Who is going to buy so many of the things? They have already said that they will return the older ones to the leasing companies when their new order arrives.

You cannot compare EK and CX.

EK is on a politically driven global expansion plan and fed by a bottomless funding pit. It seems to be working, as they *appear* to be profitable, and their geographical location helps.

CX is limited to its geographical situation, e.g. it mostly serves China and neighbouring Asian countries, and all markets it operates on is subject to competition, none the least from EK itself. I would say it is unrealistic to expect a similar growth.

I do agree, however, that they are being a little conservative on certain aspects, and that a super Jumbo would definitely fit in the fleet, if only to satisfy the first class regulars who are apparently trying to avoid the nasty front end of the 777 like the plague.

To be honest, I have yet to understand that notion.
How is parking 1 A380/748 worse than parking 1.5 777? Let alone the 50% extra crew you have left in your hands with nothing for them to do, not all of whom will be taking unpaid leave (well, voluntarily, at least)...

A very well written article on CX's FLEET
 

Really? I wouldn't believe everything you read...

Very much so. My 380 is always over 90% load factor, including the 90 premium seats:ok:

a 90% load factor does not guarantee profit, it all depends on the yield.:eek:

Very good point Spanners.


CX 2013 profit announced 13th Mar 2013 $US118 million
EK Group 2013 profit announced 09th May 2013 $US845 million.
EK 2013 profit announced 09th May 2013 $US622 million.


The Don

How much does EK pay for fuel ? Tankering out of DXB would indicate a competitive advantage.

Have never tankered out of DXB, KWI yes, but never DXB. If what you are getting at is that EK pays less for fuel than CX, then I'd ask what does CX pay out of HKG? or LAX, JNB, LHR, FRA, AMS etc etc etc….yep you guessed it, most likely the same as EK.

Not saying it's the same way with EK and fuel but CX pays double the price for a can of coke from CX catering than other customers from CX catering, it's easy to hide money if you own the entire business.

Honestly, I don't really mind that. The longer we still make business sense to Swire...the better. Cathay is a tinker-toy for Swire in terms of portfolio %. Let 'em make bank, just please don't sell us to Air China.:{

Missed a trick, who owned the coke before catering, the CX boys are rentals. On the right track, follow the cash. Sell to Air China, sold/swaps already in, CX longer term future will be interesting. When's the handover, whenwe start thinking less EK and more ANZ.

Looks like Transaero picked up the aircraft they were trying to offload to CX.

CX vs EK vs SQ vs BA/LH/AF vs QF etc

I think that it is much more to do with geographical location (hub location) and aircraft range etc.

The Gulf States can offer a hub that connects to anywhere in the world with a one-stop flight.

As a result, and as an example, Ek fly from Glasgow, Newcastle, Birmingham, London and doubtless other UK origins to DXB and onwards to HKG, SIN, BKK, DEL, SYD, AKL, PEK, NRT, etc.

BA et al cannot compete. For example Newcastle -> LHR (read DUS -> FRA or BOD -> CDG) -> SIN -> SYD is one more flight. BA (and all other EU airlines don't fly to MEL, ADl, PER, BNE, AKL etc at all!) which EK does. I'm prety certain that this translates into the HKG scenario. Why fly DXB -> HKG -> xxx when you can fly DXB -> xxx direct?

The issues for the Gulf airplines is competing against each other, the airport capacity for a hub and spoke operation and the airspace changes required o support it (think Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc).

They are evolving their economies also to get tourist dollars for when the oil/gas reserves run out and by having a hub operation it helps that objective also - look at the experiences offered - duty free shopping, sun, water sports, blah blah blah.

Personally I hate the sandpit and would/will never go by choice, but can understand why people do and use the airline links that they offer as being the currently most convenient available.

The rest of the world in the meantime has to adapt.

All imho .......

No. Transaero signed an MoU for 4 back in 2011. There were some questions earlier in 2013 if they were ever going to be firmed up since it had been so long, but in the latter third of 2013, the UN CEO stated the actual plans that they had for the 747-8, and how they were going to use them differently than the A380s that they have on order, so it was pretty clear at that time that they would be firmed up.

That happened on December 27th. The other 2 8Is that were firmed on December 21st have been the target of a lot of speculation, however they are most likely for CA, since they had committed to 2 back in March of 2013.

Whether or not CX still picks up some 747-8Is could still be an interesting question I feel.

.... Ok, and when this happens, what do they propose to fill those huge tanks on that monsterous fleet with? I think the Chinese think a bit more strategically to this... I guess if others have some oil they can then be stung more for the privilege.